If you're going to push for a legislative "fix" for a problem the first step should be to identify said problem, right? Towards that end you should be able to provide evidence that there's actually a problem in need of fixing. If there's not then logic would tell you there's no need for legislation.
Apparently the Delaware legislature doesn't get this. Delaware just passed SB29, making it illegal for Delaware gun owners to carry a firearm while "under the influence." The original bill was awful (I won't get into the specifics since that version didn't pass. It would've made it illegal for me to have a beer or two on the deck at the beach house while my gun was stored elsewhere in the house!), and while the version that passed isn't the worst anti-gun legislation you might see it is still more gun control that is totally unnecessary.
Where is the evidence of problem? Were Delaware's CCDW holders suddenly getting all liquored up, pulling their carry pieces and shooting people? No, and neither were OC'ers. Even if they were doing so such actions are already illegal, making this bill completely useless. This was, to put it bluntly, a solution to a problem that didn't exist. People who would go get hammered and carry a gun in public are going to do it anyway, whether this new law was passed or not. (and even then that's arguably far less dangerous than DUI) Those who go through the time and considerable expense needed to get a CCDW don't tend to get hammered and then go carry. Even assuming they did, concealed means concealed, so how would an officer know they were carrying?
Another thing that bothers me about this bill is that it gives law enforcement probable cause to stop any OC'er he sees leaving an establishment that sells / serves alcohol. Any law that gives the police extra means and incentive to harass lawful open carry in this state is a bad thing. Let's say a cop sees me carry out of Iron Hill Brewery and sees me stumble a bit, or maybe thinks I'm overly jovial that can now be used as suspicion I've committed a crime. Before this bill there was no PC to stop me or detain me. Now I could be stopped under suspicion of carrying "under the influence" due to nothing more than a CP induced limp / gait and poor balance.
The legislation states that anyone convicted under the new law will have their CCDW revoked and cannot get another for a period of 5 years. In reality anyone convicted under the new law will never be able to get a CCDW in this state without considerable political connections. Delaware is a "May Issue" state. They can deny your permit application for any reason they feel like. They've also made conviction for subsequent offenses a felony. Great, just what we need, more felonies for malum prohibitum crimes.
As Unc would say, "Gun Control. It's what you do instead of something."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Any bets that they'll be a heck of a lot more Convictions against Gun Owners vs. Drivers? Bright spot might be is if Delaware has some sort of Sentence Reduction Program where Drivers attend Safety Classes for the First Offense. If they don't allow it for Gun Owners, then a good lawyer should point out that the Death Rate among Drunk Drivers is MUCH higher than among Gun Owners, therefore they are facing a Violation of the Constitutional Rights, i.e., 2, 5 and 8. After all, one doesn't have to take a Breathalyzer Test (5th Amendment), and Unlawful Seizure of one's Firearms is a Violation of 2A. So if they make it Mandatory to take the Weapon if one Fails a Breath Test w/o a Jury Trial, then this whole law should be declared Unconstitutional.
Post a Comment