Drinking and packing
A new bill advancing through the Iowa Senate would compel gun owners to take a breathalyzer test if an officer suspects they’re intoxicated while armed.
Under the proposal, anyone who declines would automatically forfeit their firearm permit.
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Same as drinking and driving… If it is illegal to do something while drinking and an officer has probable cause to get a breathalyzer done then its kinda should be that way.
*I have not read the law at the link
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:36 pm
How about officers? Do we get to breathalyze them?
I ask as the resident of a city that is known for its DUI-prone cops…
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:37 pm
The problem with this is the reasoning behind it…
Democratic Sen. Gene Fraise, the bill’s sponsor, continued to express concern about the possibility of alcohol-fueled bar fights, but said individual bars already have the right to ban weapons on their property.
Does not sound like he cares about drunk packing at all.
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Drinking with a gun in your pocket is like drinking with a car in your garage, as far as I’m concerned.
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Sounds to me as if the sponsor of the legislation assumes that all gun owners/CCWers are reckless drunks and wants to treat them accordingly.
IMHO, this has less to do with public safety than with facilitating harassment of the (legally armed) public.
Besides, aren’t cops pretty much already empowered to do this sort of thing, if they have probable cause?
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:51 pm
What’s with the Demon Rum nonsense? Aren’t we over this yet?
As Auggie Smith says, there’s no magic to booze that makes you do something you wouldn’t ordinarily do. The booze crutch is something straight from Carrie Nation.
Where are the drunken firefights two states away in Indiana? Where not only can you carry into a bar, but you can drink while armed.
I am excluding the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department . . . of course.
March 3rd, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Chipping away your rights…this is what they do.
March 3rd, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Last year, Georgia allowed us to drink and carry. Since then, there has been no problems.
March 3rd, 2011 at 2:04 pm
This is why I’m very happy to see the constitutional carry wave forming. While something is permitted by the state, that permit will always be in jeopardy for political reasons. See driving analogy above.
Once it’s recognized that, yes, free people are free to defend themselves as they go about their lives, it’s much harder for the state to take it away because some legislator has an axe to grind with the demon rum.
March 3rd, 2011 at 2:04 pm
It does raise a whole lot of questions relative to how they would determine who has a permit in the first place, unless they are just going to start demanding ID from everyone they meet.
Beyond that, if it’s actually “concealed”, how would they know that the person is armed?
Sounds like quite a bit of reaching, to me.
March 3rd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Logical consistency would be that any drunk person can’t be found guilty of shooting somebody. If a person is automatically irresponsible when they drink, then they should be held responsible.
March 3rd, 2011 at 3:20 pm
“The proposal would also require new gun owners to receive training on a firearms range,” according to the article.
So in Iowa there is essentially a tax being proposed on the exercise of a Constitutional enumerated right? This flies in the face of Heller.
March 3rd, 2011 at 3:53 pm
I have seen no evidence of a problem, thus no such law is needed.
Now a law allowing me to breathalyze any cop I see on the street? That might have merit.
March 3rd, 2011 at 4:41 pm
I have a better notion:
A new bill advancing through the Iowa Senate would compel legislators to take a breathalyzer test if an officer suspects they’re intoxicated while voting.
Under the proposal, anyone who declines would automatically forfeit their office.
March 3rd, 2011 at 5:43 pm
If the government can have a whole beur, er, bur, BATFE, then I should be able to have a beer with a gun in my pocket.
March 3rd, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Comment #4: +1.
A law that would save many, many more lives:
Enable/require police to search any citizen suspected of drinking while carrying car keys or a drivers license. If either is found, they must submit to a breathalyzer test. If over 0.8, they lose their car and/or license. Because if they’re drunk and they have the means to use a car, they are a public hazard.
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Just remember…anything more than a six pack is considered high capacity
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:30 pm
See, this is where people just don’t get the difference between rights and privileges. You have a right to go about while armed, Second Amendment and all that. You do not have the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads; that’s a statutory creation with certain limitations. If you want to drive on the public roads, as part of their use you must submit to certain limitations, including the “implied consent” laws used for BAC testing. This isn’t the case with constitutional rights. There is, properly, no permit that can be revoked.
That said, if this were something I wanted to be made criminal I’d just make it a subset of Drunk in Public laws and penalize it that way. A DIP is much easier to prove than a DUI.
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Re: jefferson101 #10
When you say “reaching” I take it you mean “potential for abuse”
March 3rd, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Wolfwood ( # 18 ): Driving is NOT a privilege.
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty…. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929
March 3rd, 2011 at 9:00 pm
How about if you amend the law to say that if the person does take the test, and passes, that the police dept administering the test must pay them $50,000 ( and this amount would be adjusted each year for inflation.) Double the amount each time a specific person is tested and passes.
Do that and maybe I’d agree to it.
March 4th, 2011 at 12:28 am
@CarlS thanks!
March 4th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
The prior constraints on prostitution are going to be a bitch, just to have it said. Half the population equipped to offer, half to honor (minus a few percentage points for accident victims, Helmke and newagers): just add .08 and hell anything could happen. Looks like there’s another class of “weapon” that will need to be licensed. Been done before.
Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes: line forms here.