Writing this month in the hope that I get some feedback, some discussion, some comments, about something that's been bothering me for a while now.

A new law went into effect last week that seriously changes the consequences of a second DUI conviction: anyone convicted of a second DUI within 7 years of a “prior offense” will lose their right to possess guns. Forever. What’s more, even if either the first or second DUI arrest is amended to a lesser charge it won't matter, they will still lose their 2nd Amendment rights. Forever.

Lose a Constitutional Right Because of a DUI

I talked with a close friend about this article who said "well, if they're that irresponsible they shouldn't ...". At first glance, that might seem reasonable to a person who chooses not to own firearms. On the other hand, more than a few people I've talked to are appalled at the idea that their constitutional right can be taken away for something so unrelated.

The penalties in place for a DUI are, of course, all related to, well, alcohol and/or drugs and driving. Lose a license for months or years, pay astronomical insurance rates, have an Interlock Device installed, go to rehab/attend counseling, and more all related to the charge.

Look, this is not about gun control or the 2nd Amendment. This is about rules being changed and a penalty imposed that has little to do with the arrest, the charge. It's like getting arrested for jaywalking, paying a fine, then finding out a year or so later you're on the no-fly list at SeaTac. There's just no reasonable causal connection.

I don't believe we should fight to protect some of our constitutional rights. We really don't get to pick and choose. Changes like this one – revoking a right seemingly unrelated to the offense - may lead, I hate the term , to a 'slippery slope’ but this clearly is one.

When we start expanding the reasons for revoking a constitutional right to include crimes that show bad judgement (on two occasions in seven years), the expansion of this policy seems untethered to any specific offense. After all, couldn’t the same argument be made about any criminal conviction? What about other constitutional rights like the right to vote?

One more thing to dislike (fear?) about this new law - there's a very strong sense that the court - particularly the prosecutor - has wide discretion to interpret past convictions as they see fit. They can consider the applicant's state of mind - past, present, and future - in making a final ruling.

When courts can strip a constitutional right - any constitutional right - by making broad assumptions, using an arrest rather than a conviction as the basis for anything, and/or inferring future behavior, we - all of us - have a problem.

I'm reminded that the Tom Cruise-Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report occurs in 2054 - a movie about what happens when we begin arresting people for thinking about a crime. We may not have Precogs yet, we also don't need to assign the job to the courts.