So If a person does not follow the law and commit a DUI you take away the car? (Answer: no the government does not)
In most states a car is impounded if there is no legally competent driver. So after a DUI cars are often impounded. In California cars may be seized.
There are a myriad of different laws on DUI. Many states take away licensing or can force the installation of ignition interlock devices, or force special license plates on drivers cars that identify them as DUI convicts.
As well, the need for insurance can eliminate DUI convicts access to a license as insurance companies will not insure repeat offenders or the cost will be so high it will force the driver off the roads.
I assume by the way that your question was about current law, and not what I think should be done. I know that 4 states have laws that allow police to seize weapons from people who have a restraining order or peace bond or whom they believe is at risk of harming others or themselves. The gun owner has the right to appeal that seizure... But at least for a while the police have removed a potential threat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_dri ... ted_States
Do you agree that a felon can lose voting rights and gun ownership rights due to felony conviction
Do I agree that is the law? Yes.
Do i agree that gun rights are being effectively restricted?
No.Besides the lack of a single comprehensive database of gun owner ship and licesning there's this ....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/fe ... ights.html
Under federal law, people with felony convictions forfeit their right to bear arms. Yet every year, thousands of felons across the country have those rights reinstated, often with little or no review. In several states, they include people convicted of violent crimes, including first-degree murder and manslaughter, an examination by The New York Times has found.
While previously a small number of felons were able to reclaim their gun rights, the process became commonplace in many states in the late 1980s, after Congress started allowing state laws to dictate these reinstatements — part of an overhaul of federal gun laws orchestrated by the National Rifle Association. The restoration movement has gathered force in recent years, as gun rights advocates have sought to capitalize on the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms.
You are asking for a populace to lose rights and be treated the same as a felon. I have a problem with that way of thinking
Not at all. I'm stating that i think that if gun laws were as strict as laws on vehicle ownership and operation, (they aren't) and that if they were enforced as strictly(they aren't) then there would be far fewer incidents of gun violence.
Why do I think this? Because thats the experience with drunk driving...
ew Jersey enacted the first law that specifically criminalized driving an automobile while intoxicated, in 1906. The New Jersey statute provided that "[n]o intoxicated person shall drive a motor vehicle." Violation of this provision was punishable by a fine of up to $500, or a term of up to 60 days in county jail.
Early laws, such as that enacted in New Jersey, required proof of a state of intoxication with no specific definition of what level of inebriation qualified. The first generally accepted legal BAC limit was 0.15%. New York, for example, which had enacted a prohibition on driving while intoxicated in 1910, amended this law in 1941 to provide that it would constitute prima facie evidence of intoxication when an arrested person was found to have a BAC of .15 percent or higher, as ascertained through a test administered within two hours of arrest.
In 1938, the American Medical Association created a "Committee to Study Problems of Motor Vehicle Accidents". At the same time, the National Safety Council set up a "Committee on Tests for Intoxication".
In the US, most of the laws and penalties were greatly enhanced starting in the late 1970s, and through the 1990s, largely due to pressure from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD) and leaders like Candy Lightner. Significantly, zero tolerance laws were enacted which criminalized driving a vehicle with 0.01% or 0.02% BAC for drivers under 21. This is true even in Puerto Rico, despite maintaining a legal drinking age of 18.
On May 14, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all 50 states lower the benchmark for determining when a driver is legally drunk from 0.08 blood-alcohol content to 0.05. The idea is part of an initiative to eliminate drunk driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths. In light of this push by the NTSB, and in addition to numerous media reports, many bloggers/authors have posted content addressing the Debate Surrounding Lowering the Legal Limit from 0.08% to 0.05%