Iowa Bill Could Compel Gun Carriers to Take Breathalyzer or Lose Permit

Iowa Bill Could Compel Gun Carriers to Take Breathalyzer or Lose Permit

www.foxnews.com

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.

Under current law, gun owners already risk losing their permit if they are found carrying a gun while intoxicated -- much like motorists risk losing their license if they're caught driving drunk.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Another new law in the making that worries me. This bill allows the police to subject any law abiding, 2nd amendment embracing citizen to 'come down to the station' for a breathalyzer whenever deemed necessary by those with authority. If you refuse, you lose your permit. Another snippet from the site "One Coalition board member told The Gazette in Cedar Rapids the bill contained 'a lot of solutions looking for problems.' "

If there already is a law in place, and alcoholic gunslingers a seeming rarity, does this bill's ends justify it's means?

Personally I think not.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

A great idea, why waste bullets?

A drunk gun owner is a bad shot anyway, right?

Is there any test that gun owners have to take to continue owning a gun other than being able to breathe in and out in the USA? This is a serious question, or is it for life (or death )

Well there goes the TEA Party The Iowa caucuses are going to be a lot safer.

But honestly, stupid law, if there is already a law on the books prohibiting handling a firearm while intoxicated why introduce another one?

Just remember folks, Guns and Alcohol don't mix.

I would be keeping an eye on other bills the legislators are trying to pass. This just may be a distraction in order to pass other bills, like tax increases, quietly.

Actually this is not the big controversy in Iowa right now....the real controversy is to expand rights for gun owners. A bill being proposed now would allow a "stand and meet force with force" policy. A person would not have to be in their home...but out public you could shoot instead of retreating. Private citizens would be allowed to shoot attackers if they feel their life is threatened. Earlier this year, it became easier to get a gun permit and hundreds of new permits have been issued. In the past a person had to take class and prove they could handle a gun, with a backgroumd check. The sheriff's dept's state wide have been overwhelmed with requests for permits.

Heres the link to local news station: www.kcci.com...
with the details.

So, of course there will be no police officers going to bars with their guns? I can't count the times I've been out and police officers that were part of our group were out with us drinking at bars while wearing their guns.

But that's totally different, right?

To nerbot

Say one owns a gun for protection, and in 5 years have never had a reason to fire it for anything other than target practice. Do they need to take a test for reserving that right for protection?

An expectation that one can remove all the 'bad' in the world is ludicrous. You will have a bad egg with a gun somewhere down the road no matter what, where, or when. Besides, there is nothing about the old law that doesn't allow a cop to breathalyze you. If you refuse, you could still get disorderly conduct, in which they can find out the truth on your way in.

To: whatukno

It's true, guns and alcohol really don't mix. Thanks for the reply.

To: Jam321

Do you know of any hidden agenda bills that have surfaced that might slip by in the face of these other ones (second one referenced by liveyourlife)?

To:Liveyourlife

I would support this if those with the new rights were to take classes proving they are responsible. It would also generate more revenue for the states/counties.

Texas expanded it's "Castle Doctrine" in 2009 to include automobiles - ordinary citizens are allowed to carry a handgun in their car and many of the home defense and personal protections afforded to residences were extended to automobiles. Concurrently, "stand and defend" allowances were incorporated into the existing Castle law which previously had required the homeowner to retreat if possible. An interesting side note in the law for licensed handgun carriers changed to allow lethal force in defense against LEOs in certain situations - a complete shocker in my license renewal class.

As usual, the first idiots to test the new law shot intruders through a window just for tresspass in an urban residential setting, two neighborhood kids cutting across his yard at night. I haven't heard any automobile related handgun incidents based on the widespread legality of concealed handguns in cars - if you don't count Texas LEOs shooting into cars with small children this week.

No comment on the breathalyzer testing other than to express hope the details make sense - only if you brandish or use the weapon perhaps, maybe a DUI traffic stop, anything less than a penal code violation should not (in my opinion) require a test, but legislators rarely have much sense when it comes to enacting social controls.

ganjoa

reply to post by ALLisMIND


I'm all for it as long as they piss test and follic test the police carring guns.

Do on to others as done on to you.


And while your there have all the fireman take a piss test and follice test as well.

We see how long this is enforced.


can you say ahhhh ha.

reply to post by Rocky Black


My stop there .

How about we piss and drug test everyone takeing state money and state benifits like welfare.

Hell that would save the state millions of dollars.
This is fact.

Oh we dont want to piss off the welfare people then they wont vote for us.

Wake up people and stop drinking the coolaid.