“Gun Death” Negligent Car Operation

Hey, but cars are NOTHING like guns, because guns are different!

The 16-year-old driver in an accident that left four dead last month had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit at the time of the crash, Tarrant County Sheriff Dee Anderson said at a news conference Tuesday.

Now because people were killed he will likely face some very serious charges. Still if he had simply been pulled over for erratic driving, he would eventually get his driver’s license restored.

Now imagine if a drunk is hauled off to the drunk tank of the local PD to sober up, and on that drunk was discovered a CCW permit and a firearm. Now a simple “operating under the influence” (which is generous, as I only “Operate” my 1911 when I holster it in the morning, and tuck it into the safe at night..the rest of the time it does nothing but sit in a holster) will result in felony charges, and all rights revoked for LIFE!

Is there any doubt why people with CCW permits commit so few crimes compared to the general public, or than Police officers who also have rights restored under all but the most egregious circumstances?

H/t Bob

This entry was posted in Gun Death?. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to “Gun Death” Negligent Car Operation

  1. Jens says:

    Well over the legal limit, yet still driving, involved in an accident – here in Germany that gets you qualified as an irresponsible person, therefore unfit to own firearms, plus several months without a driver’s license, plus a psychological test and proof of not being an alcoholic to regain said license.

  2. Bob S. says:

    16-year-old driver

    The levels of fail here get really deep, really quickly.
    Unable to purchase alcohol legally – yet nearly 3 times the legal limit.
    Laws against minor in possession of alcohol, public intoxication, operating a vehicle while intoxicated — all failed to stop.
    Yet background checks, registries (aren’t cars registered?), age limits on purchases, etc are supposed to stop “gun crime”?

    Call me skeptical.

    • Archer says:

      Minor correction: Since the 16-yr-old driver was not able to consume alcohol legally, the “legal limit” for him is, by definition, 0.00%. “Three times the legal limit” for him is still 0.00%.

      The whole “legal limit” of 0.08% is more about definitions and liability. A person can be “impaired” – and therefore be prime DUII material – well below the “legal limit.” The 0.08% number is the point where, even with no other signs/symptoms of impairment, a person is legally impaired.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *