No, English is my first (and essentially only) language. How 'bout yourself? The reason I ask is that because while I posited that you asserted that a test was necessary for a conviction, you replied by claiming that my posit was equivalent to me agreeing with your assertion. This is hardly the case.

Are you to claim that you can not be charged for DUI in CA? Once again, you don't seem to be pedantic since you don't mention DUI.

Again, is English a second language? I'm puzzled by your use of "pedantic", both here and earlier. In any case, I pointed out earlier (in that "snipped as not relevant") section that there was indeed a DUI (of anything) law, that there was a per se law, but that there was NOT a "drunk driving" law. I also asked you how you defined "drunk driving", add - more specifically - what laws applied.

A useful site; that was where I copied the "not relevant" cites from. In fact, I delved quite deeply there, but did not see any references to "limits of impaired vs. drunk driving." Perhaps you could provide a link?

That's basically what I thought (using common names), but your assertion was that a drunk driving (DUI) conviction required a chemical test, vs. other evidence. And that is where I disagree.

I'm not sure where that came from, or what you mean by it. Perhaps I'm dense.

You mean as Glock does with its "safe action" system?

http://us.glock.com/technology/safe-action

Or a urine test, at least in California. I hope that we can agree that your assertion is that an approved chemical test is required for a "drunk driving" conviction.

That is conjecture on your part.

Please point me to the definition. I cited two laws; you called them irrelevant.

Once again, "drunk driving" is not a legal charge in CA.

If there is such a difference, please point me to the relevant laws. As I cited, you can be guilty of driving under the influence [of alcohol or drugs], you can be guilty of having a blood alcohol level of over .08%, or both. Video of a weaving driver, etc., would certainly be compelling evidence of being under the influence. A chemical test would be required for the .08% case. Are you asserting that DUI is not "drunk driving?"

Yes, you did say "drunk driving" - which, as far as I know, is not an actual offence. According to the vehicle code:

23152(a) It is a misdemeanor to drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.
23152(b) It is a misdemeanor to drive with .08% or more of alcohol in your blood.

So: what do you mean by "drunk driving?" I assumed (my fault, I know) that you were referring to a situation where a person's driving was affected by his drinking - section (a) above. In which case, no Breathalyzer is required. Section (b) obviously requires some form of testing ('tho not necessarily a Breathalyzer), but there is no requirement that you be "drunk" - only that your alcohol level be above some arbitrary point.

The point I was making is that a Breathalyzer is NOT a requirement (as you asserted) for what is commonly referred to as a "drunk driving" conviction. Nor did I did suggest that alcohol on the breath (alone) was sufficient for such a conviction.

No, I made no such claim (that there is no burden of proof.) I pointed out that your actions (weaving, etc.) could be sufficient proof of impairment - that there is no requirement for a Breathalyzer (or other empirical testing) at all.

I don't know where you live, but [at least] in California, there is no Breathalyzer required. The law says that you can't drive while impaired, and the officer's testimony can be sufficient to convict. "Can be", as in he does have to convince the judge or jury. If he testifies that you were weaving about, had bloodshot eyes, the smell of alcohol on your breath, couldn't touch your nose, etc., it is likely that you'll go down. The Breathalyzer simply makes it easier to convict: by law, a blood alcohol level of over 0.08% is a presumption of guilt; no further proof is required.

And if your level is below 0.08%, you're still not off the hook. Once again, it comes down to whether or not you're impaired - regardless of your blood alky level. Which sorta brings us to . . .

If that person is taking enough cold medicine to affect his driving, then yes - he can be jailed. The law doesn't care if it's alcohol, OTC medications, or prescription drugs. If it impairs your driving, you're guilty.

No, it's relevant because - as the cited site points out - legally owned, full autos have distinctly not been a factor in crimes. But making such absurd claims (that there have been only two homicides by autos in almost 80 years) leads to reasonable questioning of the credibility of valid pro-gun arguments. It is not unlike Chicken Little claiming that the sky is falling. Stick to the facts, and you're safe. Get caught with spouting mistruths, and your legitimate arguments will be ignored.

[BTW - I'm a 1911 owner (Colt's Combat Commander, Mk. II Series 80, SS), and a life long 2nd Amendment supporter - which, IMHO, includes the right to own assault weapons.]

According to http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html, there have been (at least) two homicides involving legally owned machine guns (including the cop who was the killer).

But that doesn't count the illegal guns: four police officers were killed by full autos between '83 and '92, as well as "less than 1%" of Miami's homicide victims in 1980.

[Their numbers were sourced from Gary Kleck's seminal work, "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control."]

mmmmmmmm . . . cheese grits.

I just did a bit of Googling, and I think you're correct - I'm seeing references to covers, not rotating units. But it's been almost 40 years since I drove the car, and that was a lot of brain cells ago . . .

I'm not sure that I understand your reference to covers - I'm referring to a design wherein the entire, twin bulb headlamp rotated. That is, the headlamps pointed down when closed. But my point here and in another comment was that the Merc was distinctly more pedestrian friendly when closed. Again, this car had its headlamps forming part of the grill, not popping up like on a Mazda RX-7.

Huh? How does this affect pedestrian safety? If anything, I'd rather be hit by the smooth metal on the closed lights than the glass headlamps when they were open. Bear in mind, these were located in the grill and rotated in place, rather than popping up from the hood line.

1969 Merc Colony Park. My Dad started routinely seeing the lights open in the morning till he had it fixed. (They were spring loaded to be open; a vacuum cylinder pulled them closed.)

A nod to Tom Leher, who did say it - in "Wernher Von Braun", from his "That Was the Year That Was" album.

Hence, my "in general" qualifier. Of more interest is how the nolo.com info applies here. From your link:

"Certain debts are usually automatically nondischargeable, including the following:
          - student loans
          - child support or spousal support obligations
          - debts owed to government entities (fines, taxes, court costs, restitution in criminal cases, etc.)
[etc]."

This certainly covers the fine (as I mentioned). The reference to restitution here is a little muddy, as the restitution is owed to the injured party, not to the government. I suspect that they meant restitution ordered by the court, regardless of who it is owed to. That would concur with the quick Googling I did before I posted.

But notwithstanding the above, they go on to say:

"If the judgment creditor files an objection to your discharge and proves the underlying debt to be any of the following types, it may not be dischargeable:
          - injury caused by a willful or malicious act, such as assault
[etc.]"

The DDOS attack is clearly both willful AND malicious, suggesting that the restitution would stand.

IOW, the nolo.com article supports my initial comment - thanks for the cite!