WMN: t3_2dwpux_t1_cjuojp8

[TITLE]

CMV: We should prohibit some people from possessing or consuming alcohol like we do with firearms

[Gun_Defender]

Note: This is related to United States law, but in theory it could apply to other places. I am specifically arguing this from a perspective of US law. There are various things that disqualify people from being allowed to purchase or possess firearms or ammunition. These generally include (sometimes depending on state) being involuntarily committed to a mental institution, being the target of a restraining order, being adjudicated by a court to be mentally unfit to stand trial, being convicted of a violent misdemeanor or a domestic violence crime, and being convicted of a felony. Most people seem to be perfectly happy with prohibiting some people from possessing firearms based on their history, convictions, mental illness, etc. I believe we should be very careful with who we remove constitutionally protected rights from, but I am ok with removing firearm rights through due process of law in most of the cases where we do under current law. My question is why do we not remove the privilege of people to possess and consume alcohol under certain circumstances? This isn't a constitutionally protected right, and removal of that freedom would be done with due process anyway, so there is no particular reason why we cannot do it. We should create a list of offenses that disqualify a person from being allowed to possess or consume alcohol. That list should include people with a DUI conviction that resulted in injury or death to an innocent person, with a felony DUI conviction (multiple DUIs in a short period, DUI while on a suspended license, etc), people with a domestic violence or child endangerment conviction that was alcohol related, and perhaps even people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution with suicidal tendencies. Alcohol consumption seems to increase risk of suicide in people who are already very depressed or suicidal, it seems to increase the likelihood of domestic violence and child abuse, and it definitely increases the risk of DUI in people with prior DUI convictions. In fact, I have a friend with 4 DUIs over a period of less than 10 years, 1 while driving on a suspended license, and yet they still eventually gave him his license back, and he still drinks regularly and sometimes drives while under the influence. I think that is appalling, just because he hasn't hurt anyone yet doesn't mean he should be allowed to keep drinking and driving until someone gets killed. His ability to legally possess and consume alcohol is a danger to society, and simply suspending his license again isn't good enough, he will still drive illegally even without a license. Here is how I would implement it. I think it is too much of a burden to require all bars and liquor stores to call up a system and run a background check on every patron like the current NICS system for firearms. Instead, I propose that people who are deemed to be prohibited persons should have a special mark placed on their driver's license or ID which would indicate that they are prohibited. Bar tenders and liquor store employees would need to check everyone's ID, not just people who appear to be under age, and would be required to refuse to sell alcohol to anyone with that mark on their license. Obviously that won't stop them from paying a homeless person to buy them alcohol, like teenagers do, so we also need strict penalties for prohibited persons who are caught with any alcohol in their blood or in their possession, and even stricter penalties if they are caught committing any sort of crime while under the influence such as DUI, domestic violence, etc. This post was prompted by this thread, but has also been something I've been thinking about for a long time:http://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/2dnxcy/should_the_government_be_allowed_to_ban_people/ TL;DR: Just like some people are deemed by society to be too irresponsible to be allowed to possess firearms due to criminal activity or mental illness, some people (potentially for different reasons) should be deemed by society to be too irresponsible to be allowed to possess or consume alcohol, and it should be a criminal offense for a prohibited person to possess or consume alcohol. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[cmv12345]

[STA-CITE]> My question is why do we not remove the privilege of people to possess and consume alcohol under certain circumstances? This isn't a constitutionally protected right, and removal of that freedom would be done with due process anyway, so there is no particular reason why we cannot do it. [END-CITE]Because the enforcement would be excessive. Requiring the level of enforcement (numerous ID checks) would be overblown compared to the damage. Firearm regulations are a synch compared to these. Our society has a much better policy of suspending licenses, removing children from certain people's care, etc.

[Gun_Defender]

Apparently they already have a system like I suggested in Minnesota, and it seems to work for them. http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/minnesotabcard/ And they have systems where during probation you wear a monitor that detects if you consume alcohol, and they force some people to install interlock breathalizers on their cars or take weekly pee tests. http://www.scramsystems.com/index/programs/community-supervision/probation

[cmv12345]

[STA-CITE]> and it seems to work for them. [END-CITE]Source? Evidence that they have a system is not evidence that the system works. As someone who had a license which said I couldn't drink (due to being underage), I can tell you that it was a trivial matter to purchase and consume alcoholic products. As far as probation goes, that is a different animal entirely. The primary discussion is about permanently banning someone's access to alcohol. Probation methods are not a long term strategy, unless you want to argue that they should be. I for one do not think it is a practical policy to require weekly pee tests for someone for the rest of their natural life.

[Gun_Defender]

And it is a trival matter for felons to get guns, but we still prohibit it. The difference between this and being under age is the penalties, if you are caught as an adult you can loose you license for life, be fined, or even be thrown in prison. What is your definition of "working"? The ankle monitors lower recidivism, I call that working. I don't have time to look up stats about the minnesota program right now, but I bet it also lowers recidivism.

[cmv12345]

[STA-CITE]> And it is a trival matter for felons to get guns, but we still prohibit it. [END-CITE]It's a wee bit harder than it is for alcohol. [STA-CITE]> What is your definition of "working"? [END-CITE]You made the case that it was working, so I think you should be responsible for coming up with this determination. [STA-CITE]> I don't have time to look up stats about the minnesota program right now, but I bet it also lowers recidivism. [END-CITE]Burden of Proof is on you. [STA-CITE]> The ankle monitors lower recidivism, I call that working. [END-CITE]Please reread my post above. Unless you are advocating lifetime monitoring via an ankle monitor, then its irrelevant to our discussion.

[Gun_Defender]

A wee bit, but the same methods work. You can make it at home, but it might be lower quality if you aren't very skilled. You can have someone else who is allowed to buy it purchase it for you illegally. You can get it from black market dealers who don't care if you are prohibited from having it. I now had time to look up the evidence that the license mark lowers recidivism. [STA-CITE]>The overall re-cancellation rate for this group of repeat DWI offenders after their first reinstatement is 37.14%. It is important to note that most of these re-cancellations occurred because of a subsequent DWI incident. There were 6,412 (10,201 - 3,789), 62.86% of the total 10,201 violators who did not receive another license cancellation after their license was reinstated. A review of DWI statistics and drivers license data indicates that about one-half of all repeat DWI offenders, recidivate. Yet the data here concerning 3rd time DWI offenders who are re-instated shows that only 37.14% recidivate. One possible explanation for this lower recidivism rate is that those violators who had the motivation to and actually comply with all of the requirements (treatment, aftercare, abstinence, proof of sobriety) necessary to reinstatement their driving privileges are better able to maintain their sobriety and consequently their license. [END-CITE][Pdf warning](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&q=minnesota%20b%20card.lowers%20recidivism&ei=Os3zU7erK4b5iQKHk4CAAw&url=http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2008/mandated/080016.pdf&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEpEf45qVTBsRn3n4egCuvYAfn-Jw)

[cmv12345]

[STA-CITE]> A wee bit, but the same methods work. You can make it at home, but it might be lower quality if you aren't very skilled. You can have someone else who is allowed to buy it purchase it for you illegally. You can get it from black market dealers who don't care if you are prohibited from having it. [END-CITE]Not at all to the same degree. The amount of prep it took for me to buy alcohol underage was the amount of time it took to call my then 21 friend and ask him to come to the grocery store with me. In fact, the first time I had alcohol underage it was literally handed to me, without having to seek out illicit behavior. I have friends who have brewed beer with relatively little effort and skill. 11% of all alcohol is consumed illegally and 39% of high schoolers have violated US drinking laws during the past year. http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/underage-drinking.htm How does your source prove your point? You point out that 1/3 of B-restricted licenses manage to get alcohol. The majority of these who get caught were found in a DWI incident (meaning that the policy was totally ineffective, the person got alcohol and was caught by methods other than the b-license restriction) Then you point out that repeat offenders have a lower recidivism rate.

[Gun_Defender]

[STA-CITE]>The amount of prep it took for me to buy alcohol underage was the amount of time it took to call my then 21 friend and ask him to come to the grocery store with me. [END-CITE]And if you are a felon and want a gun you call your friend who isn't a felon and have him go down to the gun store with you, pick a gun, buy it, and you are done. You can get a gun in 15 minutes. [STA-CITE]> In fact, the first time I had alcohol underage it was literally handed to me, without having to seek out illicit behavior [END-CITE]And that's how it works with 15 year olds who can't legally buy guns, they get handed one by a gang member and are told they are now part of the gang, without them having to seek out illicit behavior. [STA-CITE]> I have friends who have brewed beer with relatively little effort and skill. [END-CITE]And I've built my own guns with relatively little effort and skill, but I have no idea how to make my own beer. Not that I couldn't figure it out, but my point is you can figure out how to make a gun easily with a google search. The majority of gun crime is committed with illegally owned firearms, much of it by people who are under age 21 and can't legally buy a handgun in most states. [STA-CITE]>A study of adult and juvenile offenders by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services found that juvenile offenders were more likely than adults to have carried a semiautomatic pistol at the crime scene (18% versus 7%). [END-CITE][Pdf warning](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF) [STA-CITE]>You point out that 1/3 of B-restricted licenses manage to get alcohol. [END-CITE]It isn't about preventing them from getting alcohol, just like gun prohibition isn't about preventing them from getting guns, it just maybe makes it a little harder (but not much) and allows the state to punish them if they are caught. And the 1/3 recidivism is much less than the 50% recidivism overall for DWI offenders, so this program works in that it makes it substantially less likely for the people to be caught again in a DWI situation. [STA-CITE]>The majority of these who get caught were found in a DWI incident (meaning that the policy was totally ineffective, the person got alcohol and was caught by methods other than the b-license restriction) [END-CITE]It wasn't ineffective, some of them were likely caught while below .08 BAC but were still able to be punished due to the mark on their license, while they wouldn't have been punished if there wasn't the no alcohol restriction. The mark allows a cop to pull the license of someone who just smells like booze, even if they aren't very drunk, because of the no alcohol restriction. It also lowered the recidivism rate from 50% to 37% , or a 26% reduction in recidivism.

[cmv12345]

[STA-CITE]> The majority of gun crime is committed with illegally owned firearms, much of it by people who are under age 21 and can't legally buy a handgun in most states. [END-CITE]Which is what percentage of actual firearms? Let's try to compare the same stats. [STA-CITE]> It isn't about preventing them from getting alcohol, just like gun prohibition isn't about preventing them from getting guns, it just maybe makes it a little harder (but not much) and allows the state to punish them if they are caught. [END-CITE]And the fact that 1/3 get caught with alcohol means that it wasn't too hard and b-license restrictions don't increase the punishments intrinsically. That is a separate issue. [STA-CITE]> And the 1/3 recidivism is much less than the 50% recidivism overall for DWI offenders, so [END-CITE]It was repeat offenders, not all DWI offenders. Also, the study itself cites the requirements of getting your license back (i.e. going through rehab, paying fines, etc.) as the reason for the lower recidivism, not a permanent alcohol ban. If anything the Minnesota program suggests that lifetime bans would be bad for society as people would loose a motivation to deal with their alcohol problems. Once again, I should stress that I'm not against mandated rehab or short-term monitoring of repeat offenders. [STA-CITE]> It wasn't ineffective, some of them were likely caught while below .08 BAC but were still able to be punished due to the mark on their license, while they wouldn't have been punished if there wasn't the no alcohol restriction. The mark allows a cop to pull the license of someone who just smells like booze, even if they aren't very drunk, because of the no alcohol restriction. [END-CITE]And how many was that.

[strapt313]

Who are you to deny another human being from consuming what they want to given they don't harm anyone else in the process? Sure, they may be harming themselves but that is their choice. It does t matter what someone wrong on a piece of paper; forcibly denying someone the right to do what they want with their bodies is a form of slavery. You are assuming you somehow own their body.

[Gun_Defender]

I'm sorry if I was unclear, but they would only be prohibited if they have been convicted of an alcohol related crime, either directly harming someone or putting others in great risk by driving under the influence repeatedly. I don't have any problem with people only harming themselves.

[wartornglory]

We do have this. Licenses have restrictions listed on them like, for example, in Minnesota, if you get a bad enough dui or too many duis the courts can order you to put on your drivers licenses a restriction that states, "any alcohol or drug use invalidates this license." This means, to my knowledge, that bars, restaurants and liquor stores can't sell alcohol to these people. At least where I worked you were allowed in the establishment at night on the weekends with thus restriction on your license.

[Gun_Defender]

Thanks, the minnesota restriction is basically exactly what I'm talking about with the license mark. We just need to make it a federal database so it is universal in all states, so if the person moves they maintain that restriction.

[wartornglory]

There have been some pushes to create this from whatb I understand but I don't believe it has happened.

[ophello]

If a law doesn't work, or is unenforceable, it shouldn't be a law. Your idea would never work. Therefore, it shouldn't be a law.

[Gun_Defender]

How do you decide if a law is working or not? I laid out how my law could be enforced, and in fact people in this thread have listed examples of very similar ideas that are already in place today. They have monitors which will inform the court if a person consumes alcohol, and they do weekly pee tests on some people to ensure they do not consume drugs and alcohol. One person said that in Minnesota they even have a drivers license restriction for people with multiple DUIs that forces them to be alcohol and drug free, and makes it so bars cannot serve them, just like what I proposed. http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/minnesotabcard/

[whozurdaddy]

When you put someone in jail or prison, you are stripping them of their freedoms as punishment...so effectively, they ARE prohibited from consuming alcohol (or anything else society deems them irresponsible for).

[Keep-reefer-illegal]

We do. It is called probation

[Gun_Defender]

True, but I was thinking more like how it is with firearms when you have a felony, it is a lifetime prohibition unless you petition a court to have your rights restored. Probation ends automatically after a certain time.

[Keep-reefer-illegal]

A judge can order you to never drink again. They can order lifetime stuff. It is just rare because they will usually just send you to rehab

[forman98]

Originally, the U.S. federal government (and most states) were designed to protect the people from each other, not themselves. What a person does to themselves is their right, so long as it does not infringe upon someone else's rights. A person has the right to do whatever they please so long as it does not hurt someone else. This means drinking alcohol, using drugs (although that is being debated all the time), firing a gun, whatever, so long as some other individual's rights are not being harmed. Someone with a drinking problem cannot harm other people unless given the means to. If a drunk driver killed someone, the car was the means tool of destruction, not the alcohol, in the eyes of the court. Yes the judicial system can take away the car and force the person to go to rehab, they cannot forcibly make them never drink alcohol, just provide consequences if they did. Remember, this has to be looked at from a government standpoint, not a personal one. It should not be the job of the government to babysit it's citizens. If the citizens want to do that, they have every right to. The government can only make sure one person is not harming another. Preventative measures can be taken, like taking away a license or putting them under the watch of a probation officer, but preventative measures only go so far before someone's rights are infringed upon. You may argue that this person is irresponsible and does not deserve to handle this particular thing anymore. That may be true to you, but have they ever infringed upon someone else's rights? If so, then yes, let the judicial system take care of them. If they have the potential to cause direct harm to someone (like drunk driving), then yes, let the judicial system take care of them. If they have a history of alcohol abuse and bad behavior when under the influence but are only buying a beer, then no, you deal with that yourself and the establishment you are in and do not get the government involved. The alcohol will not make them an immediate danger to anyone. Under that logic, a lack of sleep would make someone an immediate danger to someone. Should we have sensors on us that alert law enforce of being sleepy in public? My point is that government is already pushing the boundaries of what it can do. Asking it to run someone's life due to the possibility of them doing something wrong is asking them to infringe upon someone's rights.

[RichardBurnstine]

wow. good on you. one of the first views that i have agreed with.

[angrystoic]

I can think of a few people off the top of my head who, were it the case that they were not allowed to consume any alcohol (this means they can't enjoy a drink with their friends at their favourite bar on a friday night), would probably sink deeper into despair than they already are. Alcohol is a social thing. What you're suggesting is to further ostracize already marginalized people. Many of the kinds of people who you suggest should be banned from consuming alcohol already struggle with fitting in, integrating into society, etc. Restricting them from a social act which virtually every "normal" person enjoys almost guarantees their continued social isolation. The difference with firearms is that they are not as ingrained into society and social interaction the way that alcohol is. If a person isn't allowed to buy a gun, no one is even going to know. If a person has a mark on their license that prohibits them from enjoying a beer after work with coworkers, everyone will know. And everyone will judge them, exclude them, etc. in a way that will make it extremely difficult for them to truly overcome their issues.

[Gun_Defender]

You have gotten the closest of anyone so far to changing my view, but I still have a couple issues. First of all, I have several coworkers who do not drink, yet they still come to the bar and enjoy an ice tea or soda with the group for social purposes. Consuming alcohol isn't necessary for social interaction. They are not excluded or judged despite their choice not to consume alcohol, and no one even asks if their choice is simply for health reasons, because they are sensitive to the effects, or because they had a prior drinking problem. If it were forced then maybe they would be, but people with convictions are often judged based upon them. They wouldn't be allowed to work at my job anyway, we do ostracize ex cons in our society, but that is a seperate problem.

[thecavernrocks]

Alcohol absolutely is necessary for social interaction for people with certain mental illnesses, so that they don't get panic attacks and go home and want to and try to kill themselves. It should be solved with medication but generally that is less effective, more expensive, and harder I get hold of. Alcohol is a self-medication, allowing a mentally ill individual to feel normal for a short period of time, so there's a tiny gap of normal ness, of blowing off steam, to break up the overwhelming crushing anxiety and suicidal thoughts that take up the other 95% of the time. It keeps people like this alive. It helps them cope.

[Gun_Defender]

That's fine as long as they aren't driving drunk or committing crimes while under the influence. No one is going to take away their freedom to drink unless there are documented issues with them involving alcohol, such as attempted suicides, domestic violence, child abuse, DUI, etc.

[thecavernrocks]

That is fair enough with the driving. But why the attempted suicides? Again, it's not a black and white thing where alcohol is only ever a bad thing for mentally ill people. If you take away the only thing that's keeping some people alive then you might even increase suicides. And this is all assuming that suicide is always a bad thing anyway

[Gun_Defender]

Attempted suicide is treated a bit like a crime in this country, you can be arrested and taken to a mental institution for evaluation or committment if necessary to protect you. If alcohol was deemed to be a factor in your attempt, it might be prudent to force you to abstain from alcohol. Sure, alcohol may help with the social rehabilitation for some suicidal people, but it often causes more harm than good. Perhaps for some people a .08 BAC limit is prudent, so they can legally drink socially but cannot get very drunk without breaking the law. Alcohol is not an effective antidepressant. They should get a medical marijuana card and try that instead, it seems to work much better for many people.

[angrystoic]

Well, as you mention, I think being forced is the crucial point. Not only because it would likely make it easier to exclude and judge them (after all, it's possible that they could lie and blend in with your other coworkers), but because they simply don't have the choice. In a lot of ways, making the free choice to abstain from alcohol could be empowering-- you know what's good for you and you are willing to separate yourself from the social pressure in order to *do* what's good for you. But that empowering choice is taken away from you here... it's as if to say "we don't trust you to make this choice on your own, so we are making it for you". I don't see this being terribly helpful, and in fact, it could stir up a lot of resentment and anger. So, while I certainly agree that consuming alcohol isn't necessary for social interaction, it's also true that there are some social expectations for people to drink occasionally. And while many people are certainly capable of making the difficult but empowering choice to abstain, to force people to not drink is to A) strip them of the ability to make this potentially empowering choice, B) force them to abstain from something that, if done in moderation, will possibly have a net positive effect on their life, and C) label them as people incapable of making the choice and ostracizing them from normal society.

[Gun_Defender]

This is all very true, but it is equally true for gun rights. Telling a convicted felon that we no longer trust them to make the choice of whether to own firearms or not, and prohibiting them from owning firearms by law, definitely can stir up resentment and anger. Felons have a need to defend themselves too, if done in moderation owning a firearm could have a net positive effect on their life. But we decide it is simply too dangerous to society to allow them to make the choice, and we make it for them.

[angrystoic]

Right, and I think stirring up resentment and anger within felons who are restricted from gun ownership is bad, just like it is with the hypothetical alcohol restriction you propose. The difference, I think, is that we can accept this in the case of gun ownership because it would be *so* dangerous to allow felons to possess guns. Also, importantly, is the distinction I made in the initial argument. There is an additional "con" when weighing the pros and cons of alcohol restriction vs. the pros and cons of gun restriction. And that is the ostracizing element. You're not going to have a tough time integrating back into society because you can't own a gun, but you may have a tough time if you can't drink. But to go back to your first objection about how perhaps it's not that big a deal because some of your coworkers don't partake in the social activity of drinking alcohol and no one seems to judge them. You mention that it would be different if they were forced and I think I agree. It's not just that they don't drink, it's that they *can't* drink. No one would feel uncomfortable drinking around someone who chooses not to drink, but to drink around someone who may well *want* to drink and *can't* would make a lot of people uncomfortable, I think. Sure, it's possible for the person to handle the restriction gracefully, and laugh about it, continue to go out sober, etc. But most of the people who it would be imposed upon likely already struggle with social reality to some degree, and I really believe it would make it very difficult for them to have a good shot at legitimate rehabilitation. And possibly, may even lead to more violence and potentially more suicide and mental instability. Impossible to know for sure, but that's my take.

[Gun_Defender]

I have to award you a delta ∆ for this one. You have properly drawn a distinction between firearms and alcohol, explained to my (very particular) satisfaction why this restriction of alcohol possession or use could be more damaging to the rehabilitation of an ex con than restrictiona on firearm possession. Thank you.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/angrystoic. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/angrystoic)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[angrystoic]

Hey, thanks!

[ProfessorHeartcraft]

Wouldn't it make far more sense, and be far easier to enforce a ban on owning or operating a motor vehicle in the case of DUI convictions?

[Gun_Defender]

We don't have any system to ban people from owning and opperating motor vehicles, we can just take their license and make it illegal for them to drive on public roads. The problem is that alcohol affects judgement, and some people make very poor decisions when they are drunk, such as my friend who repeatedly drives drunk even though he swears when he is sober that he will never do it again. He gets drunk and his ability to make rational choices goes out the window, and he chooses to drive drunk even though he never would have made that choice sober. Even when his license is suspended he can still own a car and is likely to make that same poor decision if he gets drunk. He really shouldn't be allowed to buy, possess, or consume alcohol at all. In my opinion he has lost that privilege by repeatedly putting innocent people in danger by his drunk driving.

[ProfessorHeartcraft]

One must register the ownership of a car in order to insure it and be issued a licence plate.

[Gun_Defender]

Which is only required for driving on public roads. You can buy a car without registration or a license plate. You can steal a license plate from another car to make it appear at first glance that your car is registered. When my friend's license was suspended they didn't take away his license plate or registration. He was still allowed to let other people drive his car for him.

[ProfessorHeartcraft]

He wasn't barred from owning a car (as OP suggests with alcohol) but merely from driving one. A stolen licence plate will be reported rather quickly.

[A_Soporific]

The first bit is that Prohibition sucked almost all the political will out of the room. Opponents can simply point to that great example of failure and ask people to compare. That's a point that has some real heft to it. Moreover, alcohol can be made at home relatively easily. A local store around here teaches classes and sells the materials to make all the alcohol you want. In fact, they're so good that two of their customers have "gone pro" opening craft breweries/taverns. If the alcoholic has taken such a class in the past, checked out a book from the library, or looked up a "how to" on the internet then the only way to cut them off is to raid their homes, businesses, and places outside where they hang out on a periodic basis to prevent them from simply making their own. Making your own firearms is unrealistic for someone who has mental health issues, and acquiring gunpowder would be a challenge for criminals. Moreover, if they were to make homemade weapons there are better choices than guns (IEDs, flamethrowers), guns are the easy solution because they are commercially available they don't have an advantage in deadliness over other classes of weapons. Banning alcohol like we ban guns has insurmountable practical problems.

[texantillidie]

I would like to point out that to make a firearm you really only need $5 and access to home depot. A completely open pipe, a nail, a pipe with a ID matching the OD of the open pipe that has a single closed end, and some glue. DISCLAIMER- If you would like to do this PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE follow your local laws. If you just make this in your backyard and don't follow the proper procedure you have almost definitely committed a felony.

[A_Soporific]

It's theoretically possible to make an improvised firearms, people generally don't do that because home made guns are nowhere near as effective as alternatives like bombs. In contrast, home brewing is very common and functionally impossible to stop.

[Gun_Defender]

From what I've heard in the other comments it seems banning alcohol from certain people is actually easier and more effective than banning guns from them, they simply order weekly pee tests or have them wear a monitoring bracelet that informes the court if they consume alcohol. There is no similar way to detect if someone has illegally aquired a firearm, which will always be trivial to do. Making your own firearm (well, making a good one) may be beyond many mentally ill people, but buying one illegally or stealing one often isn't.

[DaSilence]

[STA-CITE]>why do we not remove the privilege of people to possess and consume alcohol under certain circumstances? This isn't a constitutionally protected right, and removal of that freedom would be done with due process anyway, so there is no particular reason why we cannot do it. [END-CITE]We do. This is common in Alaska and other areas with high alcohol abuse issues. Additionally, a judge can order (due process) that anyone under his or her supervision not possess, consume or be around the consumption of alcohol, and can order that a person must wear an ankle monitor that detects the presence of alcohol and notifies the court. I don't know that this changes your view, but what you're proposing already exists.

[Ua_Tsaug]

[STA-CITE]>We do. This is common in Alaska and other areas with high alcohol abuse issues. [END-CITE]Can confirm. I live in Alaska and I frequently see IDs at my workplace that have a big red strip that says "Alcohol Restricted". This is partially why liquor stores or restaurants will ID a person even if they are obviously over 21.

[krispy3d]

Indeed. I live in California and work with prison inmates, and nearly all of them have restrictions against alcohol use as part of their parole agreements when they get out. The same restriction is also very common for people on probation, particularly if they've been convicted of alcohol- or drug-related crimes.

[Gun_Defender]

I wasn't aware of that, that is interesting, but I don't have time currently to fully research the existing systems. However, I'm proposing a national system with a universal database. Currently an Alaska resident who is prohibited wouldn't be prohibited in Washington state, so they could move, or just go buy liquor there, and no longer be prohibited.

[workingbarbie]

[STA-CITE]>Currently an alskan resident who is prohibited wouldn't be prohibited in Washington state, so they could move, or just go buy liquor there, and no longer be prohibited. [END-CITE]Not true. I have a friend with a DUI in Arizona, and she was ordered to do TASC for an extended period of time (this is the program where you are court ordered to take weekly urine test to prove you are abstaining from substances including drugs and alcohol). She recently moved to Alabama and, though she has moved states, she is still required to do TASC and is now doing it at the offices in Alabama. She is also required to have the ignition interlock breathalyzer, even though she no longer has an Arizona license (she now has an alabama license).

[Gun_Defender]

Interesting, I guess this is pretty darn close to what I am suggesting. I didn't know this was already in place. So you haven't changed my view, just informed me that we are already doing what I suggested :)

[eye_patch_willy]

Then you're proposing a massive expansion of federal power that would undercut the most basic tenants of the US Constitution. And in your example, that may not be true, since, for one, if you have to wear a monitor, you most likely cannot leave the state. Second, foreign states are obligated to honor judgments entered, the Full Faith and Credit clause and all that. States are allowed to police themselves in this country. That's the whole point.

[granpooba19]

If Alaska revoked your driver's license and requires you to wear an ankle monitor, I don't see where federal power comes in. Yes, each state is required to give full faith and credit to judgments granted in other states, but nowhere did OP's situation and subsequent discussion mention the federal government. However, if Alaska revokes your license, that would seem to be a final judgment on the merits, which would entitle it to full faith and credit in other states. I'm not disagreeing with you, I just don't see how a revocation of a driver's license in one state shouldn't affect you in another state. If you're claiming that the national system with a universal database involves federalism, ok, it might. I agree that that is too expansive under the federal power. But, the states themselves could create a system unto themselves to share information that would not violate federalism in anyway.

[eye_patch_willy]

It doesn't, that's my point. OP is suggesting a federal mandate or a federal monitoring and enforcement system.

[Gun_Defender]

How is a federal mandate unconstitutional? Under the commerce clause they can regulate a plant grown in your own backyard and consumed by you for personal enjoyment, even though it never crosses state lines or is involved in any commerce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich I disagree with their use of the commerce clause, but that's the world we live in, that is settled law. They can indeed criminalize the use of alcohol for certain people under federal law, and force the states to place marks on the licenses of those people to prevent them from drinking, which would work sort of like the Alaska system, or the Minnesota B card: http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/minnesotabcard/ Otherwise how is the federal NICS database of prohibited persons constitutional with respect to firearms?

[Gun_Defender]

In what way would it undercut the tenants of the constitution? We have a national database of people prohibited from owning guns in the NICS. And I understand that as long as you are on probation or wearing a monitor you may not be allowed to leave the state, but I'm more talking about a lifetime prohibition similar to what we do with firearms for felons, where if they want their rights restored they have to petition a court.