I understand completely. And for the record, I'm not arguing that convicted drunk drivers should or shouldn't be allowed to hold a CHL. Nor is this a personal thing with me -- I rarely consume alcoholic beverages, and certainly never do while driving or while handling firearms!barres wrote: But DUI/DWI isn't the only conviction for which you will lose your CHL for 5 years (or is it 7?). Any misdemeanor conviction will cost you your CHL. You write hot checks and are convicted of a misdemeanor, your CHL is going to be revoked, even though no firearm was involved in your crime. That is the cost of being a CHL holder. We are expected to keep our noses clean. It doesn't mean we can't own firearms. It doesn't mean we can't carry in our vehicle via the MPA. It means we can't carry everywhere a CHL holder can carry, because we disqualified ourselves.
It's not a perfect system, but it is what we have. And we're not going to change that system by fighting it from an inferior position.
I just think it is ludicrous that if you commit a crime with a car and lose both your driving privileges and CHL rights*, you will regain your driver's license 4 years before your CHL. If it is ostensibly done under the guise of "public safety", and the public is kept safe by denying a convicted drunk driver from carrying a gun legally for 5 years, how is public safety served by allowing the same person to get behind the wheel of a car after just 1 year?
I ask this rhetorically, of course, because I know there is no reasonable answer to this question; it is just another example of government hypocrisy when it comes to gun ownership and public safety -- just like the flawed logic used by politicians who tell us that you and I will be safer once they ban civilian gun ownership and leave guns solely in the hands of criminals who seek to do us harm.
Clearly the system is not perfect.
(* Yes, I consider concealed carry a 'right', not a 'privilege', even though the politicians may think otherwise.)
