Saturday, March 5, 2011

Iowa - Breathalyzer for Gun Carriers

Fox News has the story.

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.
Isn't Iowa that place where they just relaxed the requirements for getting the CCW permit? Maybe it's one step forward and two steps back for the pro-gunners over there.

What's your opinion? Wouldn't controlling for drunkenness among gun carriers be a good thing? If they're sober and responsible, what would they have to object to?

Please leave a comment.


  1. I don't drink.
    But I know many people who can/do drink and be responsible also!

    What proof is there, other than old cowboy movies, that incidence of gun violence occurs in or around bars? Pennsylvania has a very high percentage of LTCF's and allows drinking and carrying in bars. I see no blood in the street here.

  2. Hey Danny - what part of being intoxicated, in other words, legally drunk, not simply drinking, did you miss when you wrote:
    "I don't drink.
    But I know many people who can/do drink and be responsible also!"

    Being responsible - having your full wits and mental capacity (and positive inhibitions against bad behavior) intact, not compromised by alcohol - should be every bit as much a criteria for handling a weapon as it is for driving. Which, makes a lot of sense when you consider the legal term vehicular homicide, where a vehicle is the means of killing someone. You know - like a weapon?

  3. Simple. If he were to DRIVE the car, I would have a problem with it. If he were to pull out his weapon I would have a problem with it. Do you have known facts where this has been a problem?
    You carry a gun, you don't carry a car.
    And what is your definition of intoxicated? The .08 that the MADD folks profess? Or was it the old .1 measure that initially was the law.
    Do you only no crazy drunks?

  4. The Danman wrote:

    "Do you only no crazy drunks?"

    I say 'NO' to all drunks. Or did you mean 'KNOW', not 'NO'?

    It is illegal in most states to sit behind the wheel in a vehicle with a key in it, if you are drunk. You don't have to be moving.

    The reason, being in the driver's seat, drunk, is an essential predecessor to driving drunk.

    I think the reasoning for the breathalyzer and carrying a gun would be similar, and both are equally valid.

    Surely Danny-boy, you're not going to be so foolish as to suggest that the number of instances where alcohol was involved as a primary factor doesn't apply to guns?

    Hint - do you read the annual Darwin Awards?

    "Hold my beer and watch this!"
    (28 May 2004, Italy) Fabio, 28, left the family ostrich business for a new job as a truck driver. But his interests were more eclectic than the average ostrich-farming truck driver. Relaxing one evening with friends at a pub in Cursi, Fabio shifted the conversation to his new interest in spy gadgets. He pulled an ordinary-looking pen out of his pocket and explained that it was actually a single-shot pistol. To demonstrate, he pointed it at his head and clicked the button. The cleverly disguised gadget worked perfectly, sending a .22-caliber bullet into Fabio's left occipital lobe.

    BTW - intoxicated is whatever the law currently defines intoxicated at, and I don't really care which figure they use.

  5. Agree dog gone, to sit behind the wheel, not own one! You can't charge DUI for owning a car, only being in a position to use it. In the guns case that would be in the hand, not safely stowed in a holster.
    Again, please specify me bar gun instances to back up your fear.
    In Philly, a man with a legally licensed gun and defended himself after drinking, against 4 assailants who were unarmed but feeling like kicking some ass. One of them ended up shot after charging the man with his gun drawn. Went to court, man was found NOT guilty. Booze had little to do with the trial.
    Look it up.

    And thank you for correcting me on the "know" mistake. I fall into a spell check spell occasionally.

    So if I were to have a couple beers, and have to defend myself, I want the choose to do so. I will let the jury choose my fate. Old bumper sticker, remember it? Better to be tried by 12 than carried out by 6.

  6. Dannyboy, you keep skirting around the notion of intoxication - being DRUNK - versus simply drinking.

    If someone is drunk, they shouldnn't be wearing a gun, holster or no holster. Holsters are designed to be used so that a gun can be quickly and easily drawn from it. It is not as secure as you would portray.

    Being prohibited from having a gun - holster or not - when drunk is just like being charged with DUI even if the car is not moving when you are behind the wheel drunk.

    You can drink or even be drunk and own a car, or a gun. You just can't be in a position to use either WHILE INTOXICATED.

  7. "You just can't be in a position to use either WHILE INTOXICATED."

    OK, again I am trying to get a legal definition of intoxicated from you. Mother Against Drunk Driving consider one beer intoxicated. And my car in MY garage and my gun in MY living room are in "position to use" but I choose not to, no laws broken if I am drunk at home.
    Please specify one instance where this need has arisen? (A guy with a James Bond pen is not a valid offering)
    I would like some specifics to debate you with. I also would like answers to my simple questions. At least with that as a start, we can agree to disagree.

  8. Dannytheman, I'm glad to hear you don't drink. Robert Farago said the same thing. This should be the ideal, the standard by which responsible gun carrying is judged. Any deviation is bad, even one beer. As far as legal standards, I'd make it much stricter than the driving ones, but those'll do for a starter.