As has always been said guns and alcahol don't mix. I rarely drink at all, usually no more than 2 times a year but will not touch a drop if I'm carrying. If for some reason you were forced to use your weapon to defend yourself and the lawyers found you had any alcahol in your system you will have a very hard time to justify your actions.
Common sense alone should tell people not to mix the two but of course that is not the case for some.
Big suprise...Rob Hogg's a Democrat. Why do they always think the answer is to pass another law restricting liberty and decisions?
This yet another attempt to feed a perception that permit holders are a bunch of drunken rednecks that need to be controlled before they start screaming a rebel yell and shooting up the place.
But let's look at this. Under Iowa law, it's already illegal to be intoxicated while carrying a firearm. There are also no doubt laws against public intoxication, brandishing weapons, disorderly conduct, etc. Bars already have the authority to ban firearms on their premises.
What we're talking about here is giving an officer the authority to compel you to take a breathalyzer simply because you're carrying a firearm. Isn't this a bit like forcing someone to take a breathalyzer simply because he's carrying a set of car keys?
The devil's in the details. I probably wouldn't have a problem with demanding a breathalyzer if the permit holder was involved in an incident while carrying...i.e. he drew the weapon, got in a fight, whatever. In other words, if a person is arrested for something and they intend to charge him with carrying while intoxicated, a breathalyzer gives them the ability to objectively determine intoxication. But they need probable cause. This shouldn't be written to allow a cop to test someone simply because he's carrying.
I'm hardly a conspiracy theorist. Only fools make assumptions about government use of power and make statements like "They'd never do that..." History is full of horrid examples of people who granted power to government on an assumption that it would be used benevolently, only to have it turned against them later. Furthermore, those who expressed concern and tried to sound warnings early in the decline were generally mocked and ridiculed as paranoid alarmists.
All I'm saying is that if they're going to do it, they need to spell out the conditions when they would be empowered to compel someone to essentially testify against himself. Compelled tests of this nature are right at the edge of the 5th Amendment, and therefore demand strict procedures that don't allow any discretionary room for abuse.
Read the founding fathers. Liberty is granted by God, not government, and thus the natural state of man is complete liberty. Government doesn't grant us liberties, because we already have them. Thus, the only thing Government can do is restrict liberties, and the only way it gets that power is for us to grant it. That's why it's so important to be very specific in the power we give government. The minute we start to think that our liberties exist at government's discretion, we embark on the road to serfdom.
First of all, if you haven't gone winter backpacking, it needs to happen in the near future. It puts a very unique twist on the summer version of the activity. Yes, it's cold but it's nothing that being prepared can't remedy. Beyond it's therapeutic and recreational value, I think it is a very good tool for the big game hunter as well. I don't think that you can spend too much time getting to know the ins and outs of the area that you hunt. And there is no better way to gain experience in...