This could be you...

[Just Blue]

BS! Speeding alone kills as many as DUI, throw in distracted driving and the numbers go up by at least 5 figures yearly.
"The NTSB identified more than 100,000 deaths due to speeding between 2005 and 2014. That's nearly as many as were killed in alcohol-involved crashes."
"Every mile an hour that you increase by, you're increasing your likelihood of a crash," NTSB acting chairman Robert Sumwalt said. "This study showed that we can improve the way that we set speed limits and enforce speed limits."
Speeders are killers knowing that their actions could kill someone.

Again...What is your point? THIS thread is about a drunk driver that killed 7 people. If you want to start a thread about a speeder that caused a fatal crash...got for it. Do not hijack my thread with your rantings.

 

[NeilTheCop]

Actually, great headway has been made. There is a mix of things that go into this. Safer cars, stricter laws and greater awareness.

I went through the whole site and at no point do they advocate taking the vehicle away, and prohibiting a habitual drunk driver from ever owning one again.
They still don't take the problem seriously.

 

[Just Blue]

I went through the whole site and at no point do they advocate taking the vehicle away, and prohibiting a habitual drunk driver from ever owning one again.
They still don't take the problem seriously.

Taking the car away won't stop a DD. Mom/Dad/GF/BF/BFF will just lend them their car "so the poor drunk can get to work". We've seen them posting here...Usually the thread title is something like: "Am I responsible for the damages if my BF caused an accident while drunk driving" or "Will I get in trouble for giving my BF permission to drive my car knowing his license was suspended for DD"...

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I went through the whole site and at no point do they advocate taking the vehicle away, and prohibiting a habitual drunk driver from ever owning one again.
They still don't take the problem seriously.

Did I anywhere say that the organization did advocate any of those things? The graphic was to illustrate that there has been a sizable reduction in alcohol-related traffic deaths.

 

[CdwJava]

I went through the whole site and at no point do they advocate taking the vehicle away, and prohibiting a habitual drunk driver from ever owning one again.
They still don't take the problem seriously.

One problem with taking a car away is the same thing that happens when you move to seize firearms after a conviction - the owner merely places them in someone else's name. And what of vehicles that are co-owned? Do we seize the property of the other person as well? No, they will simply re-register them into the name of someone else. Because vehicles can be transitory things, states will often mandate license suspension and/or interlock devices as opposed to vehicle seizures.

I can't say what the actual numbers are, but a great many impaired drivers are already driving cars that belong to someone else. I can't tell you how many post-storage hearings I had to conduct for people who allowed a friend or family member to drive a car and they got impaired while it was in their possession.

Not OWNING a car will not significantly impact impaired driving. Though, it might significantly impair the ability of the defendant to earn money to pay their fines and attend court-ordered classes.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I think the data I posted shows that the laws are working. A 63% drop in deaths is huge. I'd be hard-pressed to think of another law change that actually had that much of an effect especially the effect that was intended.

Sure people still die from alcohol-related accidents and that sucks but you can't legislate away stupid. It will always be there to bite you in the butt.

 

[NeilTheCop]

Taking the car away won't stop a DD. Mom/Dad/GF/BF/BFF will just lend them their car "so the poor drunk can get to work". We've seen them posting here...Usually the thread title is something like: "Am I responsible for the damages if my BF caused an accident while drunk driving" or "Will I get in trouble for giving my BF permission to drive my car knowing his license was suspended for DD"...

I'm not just talking about taking the drunks car away, it would also involve not allowing him to own or be in possession of one ever again, just like a firearm. As I said a new crime classification would be needed, 'Repeat DUI offender in possession of a motor vehicle'. They could even enact a motor vehicle Federal law modeled on the Brady Bill. Perhaps call it the Carrollton Bill
https://abcnews.go.com/US/30-years-27-died-worst-drunk-driving-crash/story?id=55119258

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I'm not just talking about taking the drunks car away, it would also involve not allowing him to own or be in possession of one ever again, just like a firearm.

And doing the later will require doing the former.

They could even enact a motor vehicle Federal law modeled on the Brady Bill.

Just what we need yet another federal law.

 

[CdwJava]

And doing the later will require doing the former.

Well, if they revoke a driver's license wouldn't that be effectively the same thing? In most every state, if you drive without a valid license you can find your car impounded.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I'm not just talking about taking the drunks car away, it would also involve not allowing him to own or be in possession of one ever again, just like a firearm.

Federal law does not make it a crime for a felong to own a gun. It makes it illegal for the felon to "ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). So it is illegal to ship or transport the firearm, to possess it, or to receive it. All those things involve a degree of possession but have nothing to do with ownership. Barry, a felon in Indiana, might own a collector firearm that he has allowed his brother Alan in California to keep and use but if Alan ever does not want it Alan has to sell it and give the money back to Barry. That would not violate federal law and as Barry is not in possession of the firearm and has no access to it the goal of the law is satisfied because Barry can't grab it and go out and shoot someone.

They could even enact a motor vehicle Federal law modeled on the Brady Bill. [/URL]

Actually, the Congress might not be able to do that. DUI laws have traditionally been considered within the jurisdiction of the states. Even if it could, it shouldn't. We have too many federal criminal laws on the books as it is.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Actually, the Congress might not be able to do that. DUI laws have traditionally been considered within the jurisdiction of the states.

No, the Feds just take away federal highway funding from the states that don't do as they are told. That is how they got all the states to raise the drinking age to 21 and decrease the BAC to .08.

But I think the SCOTUS put a stop to the blackmail a few years ago.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

But I think the SCOTUS put a stop to the blackmail a few years ago.

If I recall, the issue was withholding highway funds from states that wouldn’t enforce immigration laws.

Although I think the abuse of the Commerce Clause is out of control, I think drunk driving is more closely related to interstate commerce than possession of marijuana.

 

[justalayman]

I'm not just talking about taking the drunks car away, it would also involve not allowing him to own or be in possession of one ever again, just like a firearm. As I said a new crime classification would be needed, 'Repeat DUI offender in possession of a motor vehicle'. They could even enact a motor vehicles, Federal law modeled on the Brady Bill. Perhaps call it the Carrollton Bill
https://abcnews.go.com/US/30-years-27-died-worst-drunk-driving-crash/story?id=55119258

Define possession


In many states, there are laws in place to permanently revoke a person’s drivers license. Due to the drivers license pact and other means of knowledge of a person’s status at any other state being known in any other state, the enforcement becomes a pseudo federal prohibition.

As to being in possession of a vehicle being outlawed; given current decisIons, if a person prohibited from possessing s vehicle were to be left alone in a car they are riding and the keys remained, that person could be found to be in possession of a car. I find such a law to be overly restrictive.


You don’t have too many situations where a legal gun owner says to his buddy that can’t possess a gun;

Hey, hold this for me while I [do whatever]

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Define possession

You don’t have too many situations where a legal gun owner says to his buddy that can’t possess a gun;

Hey, hold this for me while I [do whatever]

Just to muddy the waters some more, take a look at Henderson v US, 135 S.Ct. 1780 (2015). Henderson's guns were seized by the FBI, he pleaded guilty to a felony, and tried to transfer his guns to his friends. The FBI argued that releasing the guns would give Henderson constructive possession, in violation of 18 USC 922.

What if Henderson owns a company with private security? Can the company buy firearms for its employees? What if he's a stockholder of a company with a private security force? What if a company where he's a stockholder sets up a private security force? Is he now in constructive possession of a firearm as a felon?

What if a convicted drunk driver owns a company? Can the company buy company cars? What if a convicted DD buys a cab company so he'll have drivers available at all times? What if he owns stock in Avis?

What about Joe Walsh? "My Maserati does one eighty five. I lost my license, now I don't drive. I have a limo, and ride in the back"

I don't have answers - only questions.

 

[NeilTheCop]

Just what we need yet another federal law.

But if it saves the life of just one child it's worth it.
Isn't that the standard rhetoric whenever a new anti firearm law is proposed?