• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

DNA Collection

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

Don't be surprised if one day we have to submit DNA and fingerprints for owning/buying a gun. If this passes, it's only a matter of time before misdemeanors qualify as well. Then traffic offenses. Then it will be an administrative requirement for carrying. Etc.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/80148687.html

It would be nice if people could see two feet in front of themselves. Hopefully Van Hollen has some weight on the issue.


edit: On a side note, if you read the last part of the story you will read about the effort to felonize (is that a word?) another traffic offense. Whether that's a good idea or not, this is another group of people who lose 2A rights. Why? What does one have to do with the other? I believe I mentioned on this forum a while back that we have this continuing tendency to revoke your abilities/rights in one area for violating something completely unrelated.

We have to stop accepting this false logic that we can take rights away from people for reasons that have nothing to do with the rights being taken away. Who will be left when they want to take my rights away?
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

gbu28 wrote:
Don't be surprised if one day we have to submit DNA and fingerprints for owning/buying a gun. If this passes, it's only a matter of time before misdemeanors qualify as well. Then traffic offenses. Then it will be an administrative requirement for carrying. Etc.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/80148687.html

It would be nice if people could see two feet in front of themselves. Hopefully Van Hollen has some weight on the issue.


edit: On a side note, if you read the last part of the story you will read about the effort to felonize (is that a word?) another traffic offense. Whether that's a good idea or not, this is another group of people who lose 2A rights. Why? What does one have to do with the other? I believe I mentioned on this forum a while back that we have this continuing tendency to revoke your abilities/rights in one area for violating something completely unrelated.

We have to stop accepting this false logic that we can take rights away from people for reasons that have nothing to do with the rights being taken away. Who will be left when they want to take my rights away?
welcome to the land of the free and the home of the brave <<< sarcasm.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we may all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony' as is being done here.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRAKMA$$ God damn the Obamination and its tyrant's teeth.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we may all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony' as is being done here.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRAKMA$$ God damn the Obamination and its tyrant's teeth.
agreed , the crimes that you can be charged a felony for have been increasing for the last 200 years. everytime a new law is added to the books, gives them a new reason to charge you with a felony, it will only get worse not better. soon spiting on the sidewalk will be a felony or not wearing your seat belt. If they make every infraction a felony then they can take away your rights & you will allow it. I love living in a democratic totalitarian police state. The only way to end this practice is to end this country & start over. we need a book burning in this country, burn 99 % of the law books.
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

Quite true. When I was growing up, I understood a felon to be a very dangerous person. One to keep your distance from. Now it means much less.

Not unlike when I hear someone is a sex offender. That term has lost much meaning now that I don't know, without researching it further, whether a given 30 year old guy classified as a sex offender is a guy who grabbed a 6 year old girl off the street or is a guy who at 18 got caught sleeping with his 16 year old girlfriend, or someone in between (I have to do background checks on occasion).
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

In other jurisdictions, felony is a condition of punishment, a felon is liable to more than 365 days of incarceration.

I was in a jury pool, one hundred people in that county. Judge Eggleston spent a long while lecturing on just what is a felony. Then he directed all felons and potential felons to approach his bench. Twenty only of us remained seated.

Given that a repeat drunk driver may be a felon if this bill passes, will you as juror convict a repeat drunk driver and make him a felon? Too bad the legislature will not listen to us that can nullify the law.
 

thelongone13

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
87
Location
Little Chute, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I like the idea of collecting on CONVICTION. Arrest? That's ridiculous. When are these idiots going to spend ONLY WHAT THEY HAVE?

And Doug, FIRST OFFENSE DWI should be a felony. I would feel GREAT finding a man or woman guilty of a felony in that case.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we may all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony' as is being done here.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRAKMA$$ God damn the Obamination and its tyrant's teeth.
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Given that a repeat drunk driver may be a felon if this bill passes, will you as juror convict a repeat drunk driver and make him a felon?  Too bad the legislature will not listen to us that can nullify the law.

I would not convict on a simple OWI 4th offense. Many reasons for this. Primary being that .08 is too low let alone the .02 legal limit for a fourth. Even the mother who founded MADD split company with the organization because she felt they were too 'Nazi' over lowering the limit to unreasonable levels. Second, a simple bac is no indication in and of itself whether someone is impaired or not. It's simply a catch-all. Kind of like a disorderly conduct charge. If they can't get you on anything else, it's the default that's almost impossible to win. And third, if it's only an OWI (i.e. no accidents/injuries/deaths) it shouldn't be a felony. If any of those other elements exist, it is a different set of or additional charges that will be felonies when charged.

It's simply a feel good measure. If someone kills someone else while intoxicated (or fleeing after robbing a bank, etc), there are felony charges that can be brought for those specific things.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

thelongone13 wrote:
FIRST OFFENSE DWI should be a felony. I would feel GREAT finding a man or woman guilty of a felony in that case.

Since the BAL has been lowered to .08, would you still consider someone borderline on BACa felon worthy of losing most of their rights and forfeit ever owning a firearm ever again?

So the new secretary at the office (little miss Fifi 1-shot at a whole 102 pounds) has 2 glasses of wine, gets stopped for a license plate obstruction because it is coveredwith snow, the cop smells alcohol, and she should become a convicted felon due to this? So she can no longer own a firearm, or most any other defensive weapon to defend herself against scumbag with rape on their mind.
A little harsh, don't ya think ?

What if Fifi's husband happens to own firearms, should he nowbe forcedto get rid of his guns because his wife had a 1/2 glass of wine too much after a rough day of work?

Since the BAC has been lowered from .10 down to .08, I have not had more than 1 single beer at a bar or with dinner, the .08 limitis ridiculously low IMO, and it is nothing more than increased revenue generation for the insurance companies and local governments.


Then lets look at "Heidi the Drunken bartender/bitch from hell waitress" she just got convicted for her 10'th DWI in WI, but she only gets sentenced to 36 days of Huber release, that's it!!
 

thelongone13

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
87
Location
Little Chute, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law then we may all be legally disarmed by sufficiently lowering the bar of 'felony' as is being done here.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRAKMA$$ God damn the Obamination and its tyrant's teeth.
Really? Has anyone you know been killed by a drunk driver? A responsible person would NEVER drive intoxicated. EVER. Some countries KILL second offenders.
 

thelongone13

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
87
Location
Little Chute, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Nutczak wrote:
thelongone13 wrote:
FIRST OFFENSE DWI should be a felony. I would feel GREAT finding a man or woman guilty of a felony in that case.

Since the BAL has been lowered to .08, would you still consider someone borderline on BACa felon worthy of losing most of their rights and forfeit ever owning a firearm ever again?

So the new secretary at the office (little miss Fifi 1-shot at a whole 102 pounds) has 2 glasses of wine, gets stopped for a license plate obstruction because it is coveredwith snow, the cop smells alcohol, and she should become a convicted felon due to this? So she can no longer own a firearm, or most any other defensive weapon to defend herself against scumbag with rape on their mind.
A little harsh, don't ya think ?

What if Fifi's husband happens to own firearms, should he nowbe forcedto get rid of his guns because his wife had a 1/2 glass of wine too much after a rough day of work?

Since the BAC has been lowered from .10 down to .08, I have not had more than 1 single beer at a bar or with dinner, the .08 limitis ridiculously low IMO, and it is nothing more than increased revenue generation for the insurance companies and local governments.


Then lets look at "Heidi the Drunken bartender/bitch from hell waitress" she just got convicted for her 10'th DWI in WI, but she only gets sentenced to 36 days of Huber release, that's it!!
Yes, I would as a matter of fact. If you are planning on drinking, find alternate transportation. That simple. I'd be fine with a zero-tolerance DWI law. Drunken driving does kill in and of itself.
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

thelongone13 wrote:
Really? Has anyone you know been killed by a drunk driver? A responsible person would NEVER drive intoxicated. EVER. Some countries KILL second offenders.

First, regarding zero tolerance. A quick wikipedia check about bac in other countries shows the following to have zero tolerance:
Romania
Saudi Arabia
Slovakia
United Arab Emirates
Brazil
Bangladesh
Czech Republic
Hungary

I can't speak for anyone else, but the day the US strives to be any of these countries will be a sad day.

And now for the above quote. An emotional response to a personal circumstance. As humans, we're usually not the best decision makers when we use emotional pain to guide us in making difficult decisions. I don't have that personal experience but I have had many experiences of me and my family members being harmed in various ways by people. In fact, I try hard to make a point of it not to use my personal experiences when making these sorts of decisions. Whether something happens to you or not, a rational thought process must prevail.

You say a responsible person would never drive intoxicated. You clearly have not thought about your statement. Let's look at the wikipedia def of intoxicated:

"Intoxication is the state of being affected by one or more psychoactive drugs."

Psychoactive drugs include aspirin, ibuprofen, and the biggest culprit caffeine.

So your statement means people who use all these things while driving should be felons. Now of course we both know that isn't what you meant. My purpose for stating it is in my opinion you're using irrational thought to make judgments. Judgments which can affect people in real ways, including yourself if you're not careful.

Nobody is saying drunk driving should be a slap on the wrist. Of course it's serious. Of course we need to reduce it to as near zero as possible. But would you argue that someone convicted of owi 4 times should lose 2A rights? Should they lose 1A rights? How about African-Americans? Should they lose their 13A rights? Can we put them back in bondage? I don't see a relationship between automatically losing 2A rights with being a felon, considering that being a convicted felon is increasingly becoming a result of feel good measures and less the result of someone who has a violent, dangerous disposition committing societies most despicable crimes?.

If you are saying it's okay with you for a person convicted of drunk driving to lose 2A rights, and I'm not positive you are saying so, would you kindly share with me the rationale for losing 2A rights over a driving offense? I'm honestly curious as to your line of thinking. And if so, would you also be in favor of losing the other rights I mentioned? And if not, why the difference?
 

thelongone13

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
87
Location
Little Chute, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Driving isn't a right, Doug, it's a privilege. It can and should be revoked permanently for those displaying such irresponsibility as driving drunk.

I'm not saying we are striving to become the UAE, but I don't see a reason why zero tolerance BAC laws would be a bad idea. I would hope it would cut down the number of drunk-driving related deaths on our roads.

And yes, at the VERY least after a 2nd offense DUI/DWI one SHOULD be stripped of their 2A rights. Driving intoxicated more than once shows complete and utter disregard for safety and a complete lack of responsibility. We don't want people like that handling firearms. If someone who demonstrates that big of a lack of responsibility with a CAR yet claims to be responsible with a firearm, I tend to have a hard time believing them.

Why people defend drunk driving I'll never know. Maybe I live in the wrong state... At least I'll get to arrest people for it and hope the justice system does its job.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

I do not believe anyone is defending drunken driving, it seems to me that those opposed to your idea feel that the penalty should fit the crime a little better.

Then we get into the liberal-mindsettwistedend of things where they defend a drunks actions by saying "it is a disease, they can't help themselves, it isn't their fault, Etc Etc Etc."

I am speaking of "Buzzed Driving" when I say your intended penalties are harsher than they need to be.

What do youthink about someone taking legally prescribed drugs for a medical condition, do you feel they shouldlose their rights to own firearms?

I have lost friends due to intoxicated drivers, I have also been hit by a drunk driver and required hospitalization and surgeries due to the wreck. What would you suggest be doneabout old drivers, should they lose their rights due to their age and not being as mentally fit as they once were.

Should talking or texting, on a cell phone be a felony too, since it is just as irresponsible and avoidable? the skills lost during texting while driving has been compared to be 700% more likely to cause a wreck, so should those inattentive drivers be felons too?
 

gbu28

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Milwaukee, ,
imported post

thelongone13 wrote:
It can and should be revoked permanently for those displaying such irresponsibility as driving drunk.

I'm not saying we are striving to become the UAE, but I don't see a reason why zero tolerance BAC laws would be a bad idea.

And yes, at the VERY least after a 2nd offense DUI/DWI one SHOULD be stripped of their 2A rights. Driving intoxicated more than once shows complete and utter disregard for safety and a complete lack of responsibility. We don't want people like that handling firearms. If someone who demonstrates that big of a lack of responsibility with a CAR yet claims to be responsible with a firearm, I tend to have a hard time believing them.

Why people defend drunk driving I'll never know.

At least I'll get to arrest people for it and hope the justice system does its job.

Response to statement #1:
Permanently revoked? So a 20 year old female has 2 glasses of wine at dinner, feels fine drives home. On the way, she is pulled over for a tail light out. Officer smells alcohol, gives breath test, she's 0.08. In your world view, she is revoked permanently, never to drive again. Sorry, that's insanity. Here's a link for you, I think it'll fit your nazi sense of justice.
http://www.livinginsingapore.org/

Response to statement #2:
Zero tolerance is ridiculous. If I'm point 0.001, your world view would ban me from driving forever. What a silly, silly indefensible position.

Response to statement #3:
So people show a complete lack of responsibility and utter disregard for safety. Interesting. Someone like that should have their children taken away also. Hell, if they can't be trusted to handle an inanimate object such as a firearm, it's outright dangerous to leave them in charge of innocent children. In fact, I would say it's so dangerous, we should ban them from, let's say 1000 ft of all school zones. We'd probably be wise to create an online offender list so we can all keep track of these dangerous individuals. And don't forget about doctors, police officers, teachers, child care workers. On second thought, drunk drivers are really sort of like horses with broken legs. They really are too irresponsible for this world. We would probably be better off just shooting them in the head on the side of the road. Hell, saves taxpayer money that way.

Response to statement #4:
You're trying to defend against an argument that nobody is making. Again, your logic is deeply flawed. As Nutz said, it's an argument of appropriate punishment, not an argument
on whether it should be punished.

Response to statement #5:
This tells me all I need to know about you. My only question is, you were either beat up a lot in high school, or your stepdad beat the shite out of you?

I do feel sorry for the people of Little Chute having to deal with little Miss 'You Better Show Me Respect Because I Wear A Gun And A Badge'.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

thelongone13 wrote:
Driving isn't a right, Doug, it's a privilege. It can and should be revoked permanently for those displaying such irresponsibility as driving drunk.

I'm not saying we are striving to become the UAE, but I don't see a reason why zero tolerance BAC laws would be a bad idea. I would hope it would cut down the number of drunk-driving related deaths on our roads.

And yes, at the VERY least after a 2nd offense DUI/DWI one SHOULD be stripped of their 2A rights. Driving intoxicated more than once shows complete and utter disregard for safety and a complete lack of responsibility. We don't want people like that handling firearms. If someone who demonstrates that big of a lack of responsibility with a CAR yet claims to be responsible with a firearm, I tend to have a hard time believing them.

Why people defend drunk driving I'll never know. Maybe I live in the wrong state... At least I'll get to arrest people for it and hope the justice system does its job.

I agree 100%. Bummer is that our "justice" system does not look to even want to start thinking of DWI as a real crime. A crack smoker, or a pot smokeris a problem, but a drunk driver is a joke...? I do not understand the idea...

I like the three strike idea, but that is even a bit week... You want to "play" with the life of my family, you should pay... Someday soon, I am sure you will.
 

Brendon .45

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
282
Location
Peoples' Republic of Madison, Wisconsin, USA
imported post

Glock34 wrote:
.... soon spiting on the sidewalk will be a felony ....


It IS a felony in Baltimore. Goes back to some outbreak (I don't recall which) as an effort to stop the spread of the disease.

Anywho, DNA collection should be saved for those CONVICTED of a violent crime, if at all. Simple OWI/DWI does not (should not) qualify. An arbitrary number used as the basis for just how impaired someone actually is is rediculous. And yes, I have been affected by a drunk driver - he hit me as I crossed the street - headtrauma and lingering back problems suck!
 
Top