Atlasian National DUI Bill (Amendment at Vote)

[Lief 🗽]

Hamilton, I think you're misunderstanding Sen. Franzl. What this bill would do, if I'm reading it correctly, is ensure that, no matter regional law, someone convinced of DUI shall pay at least a $2000 fine. If the region doesn't want any of that money, they set their regional fine at $0 and the person convicted of DUI will pay all $2000 to the federal government. If the region wants to set their regional fine at $2000, then the person pays $2000 to the region and $0 to the federal government. If the region wants to set their regional fine at $10,000, then the person pays $10,000 to the region and $0 to the federal government. It's really a pretty elegant solution to the problems of 1) double punishment and 2) lax regional laws.

[Lief 🗽]

Hamilton, I think you're misunderstanding Sen. Franzl. What this bill would do, if I'm reading it correctly, is ensure that, no matter regional law, someone convinced of DUI shall pay at least a $2000 fine. If the region doesn't want any of that money, they set their regional fine at $0 and the person convicted of DUI will pay all $2000 to the federal government. If the region wants to set their regional fine at $2000, then the person pays $2000 to the region and $0 to the federal government. If the region wants to set their regional fine at $10,000, then the person pays $10,000 to the region and $0 to the federal government. It's really a pretty elegant solution to the problems of 1) double punishment and 2) lax regional laws.

Ok, but your post didn't really clarify if I really do have a misconception- does the original fine ($2000) go to the regions or the federal government. If so, why would the regions give away that money for absolutely no reason.

Where the fine goes is entirely dependent on regional law. If the region sets their DUI fine at $0, then the $2000 goes to the feds; if they set it at $1000, then $1000 goes to the region and $1000 to the federal government; if they set it at $2000 or higher, all money goes to the region.

As to your second question, I don't know. Perhaps they believe that regions shouldn't be finding people for DUIs for that much money? Perhaps they'd rather institute a community service or jail time punishment?

[Lief 🗽]

You guys do realize that a 0.5 BAC would mean that most people could only have one drink before driving? That seems awfully draconian.

[Lief 🗽]

You guys do realize that a 0.5 BAC would mean that most people could only have one drink before driving? That seems awfully draconian.

Should we expect a veto, then?

Undecided.

[Lief 🗽]

a.) Fritz, we need your vote!

b.) Mr. President?

Ah, sorry. Your question slipped my mind. I don't think I would veto the entire bill, as it's important that we have a national DUI policy, but I'd like to see what the final bill is before I make any judgment.

[Lief 🗽]

Er...can you just call for a vote like that?

[Lief 🗽]

Er...can you just call for a vote like that?

I said I wanted to open the vote in 24 hours (tonight, when I did) so long as Badger had said his piece. There was no actual Senatorial debate and nobody protested. So yeah, I can open the vote.

I suppose, but I would have hoped a Senator could have introduced an amendment addressing some of Badger's concerns before a final vote.

[Lief 🗽]

X Lief