Unc has the rundown on a proposed Iowa law that would require gun owners to submit to a breathalyzer test if it's suspected they're intoxicated. Anyone who declines the test immediately loses his CCW permit, no due process needed.
I wont even get into the 4th Amendment issues I have with breathalyzer testing, but I do think such a law is massively stupid and unnecessary. Where is the evidence of a rash of drunk CCW'ers in Iowa? I'm pretty sure you can drink & carry in Delaware and I know you can in PA. Shockingly these lax laws don't seem to be an issue around here.
While I rarely look at things through the prism of "disability" (god I hate that word) this is exactly the kind of law which I could see being an issue for CCW'ers with physical impediments.
From wikipedia CP article (I know...)
"The main difference between spastic diplegia and a normal gait pattern is its signature "scissor gait — a style that some able-bodied people might tend to confuse with the effects of drunkenness."
Having watched myself walk on gait analysis video it does look a bit like a drunk person walking, with the foot/knee turning in, bobbing up & down and general aura of unsteadiness. My gait is actually far more "normal" at a full sprint than it is when I'm just walking around.
When I got busted on Spring Break in college I was the last person out of the hottub and unfortunately the first person the cop spoke to after he had all of us out. Officer Bob asked if I had been drinking at which point I calmly stated "no officer", was breathalyzed and blew a .07. At trial the cop testified that I had told him I wasn't drinking but that he had watched me get out of the tub and come over to him and that I was "clearly under the influence" I would've looked clearly drunk to him even if I hadn't had a drop of alcohol.
So, are CCW'ers with ambulatory problems going to be unfairly submitted to breathalyzers without just cause under such a bill? More than likely, since IMO they have a better chance of being confused as intoxicated. Also, how would such a requirement work anyway, since concealed means concealed and even cops don't have x-ray vision?
Frankly, I'm against any law that would give the State more power over individual citizens, particularly when the justification for its passage is a problem that is entirely nonexistent.
Also, the immediate revocation of permits illustrates the key issue with requiring a permit to exercise that which as always been a Right.
Frankly, I'm against any law that would give the State more power over individual citizens, particularly when the justification for its passage is a problem that is entirely nonexistent.
Also, the immediate revocation of permits illustrates the key issue with requiring a permit to exercise that which as always been a Right.
1 comment:
It would endanger license-holders with diabetes as well. Insulin shock produces symptoms similar to intoxication (my uncle actually almost died once after he passed out on the sidewalk and no one helped because they assumed he was drunk), and apparently ketones on one's breath smell very similar to an alcoholic beverage.
Basically, it stands to most harm the people who most need to be armed. Which somehow isn't surprising.
Post a Comment