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

[Hazcat]

By Judson Berger

Published March 02, 2011

| 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.

--SNIP--

The proposal would also require new gun owners to receive training on a firearms range, while dropping a requirement that gun owners renewing their permit seek the same training.

The Iowa Firearms Coalition has voiced opposition to the bill, particularly a provision that would prohibit prospective gun owners from fulfilling their training requirement with online classes. One Coalition board member told The Gazette in Cedar Rapids the bill contained "a lot of solutions looking for problems."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/02/iowa-compel-gun-carriers-breathalyzer-lose-permit/#ixzz1FZyt1BZc

[MikeBjerum]

What is the word I'm thinking of ... What was that word ... Oh I got it ...

Infringe

Now boys and girls, define that and use it is a sentence!

There are so many things in this story that will bring out the hate in even this group, but the basics are the requirements of a course to buy a gun, or a breathalyzer test - who decides "drunk"?

[TAB]

wait, so you need a permit to own a gun in Iowa?

are you sure this was not for CCW?

[fightingquaker13]

You want to know the road to tyranny in America? Its very simple. Its a time tested formula. Call a right a priviledge. It worked with women, holding a licence to practice law, despite holding the credintials, is a priviledge. Same with voting, holding "the franchise is a privilidege'. It works with roadside sobriety tests (warrantless searches without probable cause) because driving is a "priviledge". It worked with prohibiting interracial marriage because, you guessed it, marriage was a priviledge. Sorry, I don't buy it. You won't take my rights away from me by some cheap debators trick of arguining that my rights are mere priviledges granted by the state. Me and that half assed, semi-venemous snake on MY flag might get offended (can we get a better mascot guys? ). 
FQ13

[MikeBjerum]

wait, so you need a permit to own a gun in Iowa?

are you sure this was not for CCW?

I'll let tt reply in depth to you since he not only lives there but also stays up on these things.  However, Iowa is not far from Minnesota in stupid infringements, and it wouldn't surprise me to see it as any gun can get you a breathalyzer.  Permits for CC forfeited if you have one.

[Sponsor]

[PegLeg45]

You want to know the road to tyranny in America? Its very simple. Its a time tested formula. Call a right a priviledge. It worked with women, holding a licence to practice law, despite holding the credintials, is a priviledge. Same with voting, holding "the franchise is a privilidege'. It works with roadside sobriety tests (warrantless searches without probable cause) because driving is a "priviledge". It worked with prohibiting interracial marriage because, you guessed it, marriage was a priviledge. Sorry, I don't buy it. You won't take my rights away from me by some cheap debators trick of arguining that my rights are mere priviledges granted by the state. Me and that half assed, semi-venemous snake on MY flag might get offended (can we get a better mascot guys? ). 
FQ13

FQ, I'll buy you a beer for that one.     

[Hazcat]

wait, so you need a permit to own a gun in Iowa?

are you sure this was not for CCW?

I don't know TAB.  This article is all I have read.

[tt11758]

wait, so you need a permit to own a gun in Iowa?

are you sure this was not for CCW?

In order for an Iowa resident to purchase a handgun they must first acquire a "Purchase Permit".  This (at least in theory) provides a 3-day waiting period before one can purchase a handgun.  At least, that's the way it was sold to the public when it went into effect in the late 70's.  You apply for the permit, and if you pass the background check, your permit is valid 3 days after you apply for it.  The reason I said "at least in theory" above is that, once the permit is acquired, it is valid for a year and can be used to purchase any number of handguns with no further checks.  FYI, there's also been a bill introduced that would do away with the need for a purchase permit......a provision I HEARTILY endorse.

If one holds a valid "Permit To Carry"  (not called a CCW here, since "concealed" is not a requirement under Iowa law) the "Permit To Carry" also serves as a "Purchase Permit", since the carry permit holder has already passed a background check in order to get their carry permit.

I would also agree with the Iowa Firearms Coalition's statement that this appears to be a solution in search of a problem.  Hopefully it won't make next week's "Funnel Deadline" for legislation to be taken care of during this legislative session.

Stay tuned.

[WatchManUSA]

Here is the “slippery slope”, the “Permit to Purchase” and the “Permit to Carry” are granted by the State.  A person goes through a defined process to receive either document.  Once the required process is completed and the background checks completed the State “gives” out the document that conveys to the person the ability to buy and/or carry a firearm.  The State now, by giving out the document, is granting the owner of the document a "privilege" to buy and/or carry a firearm.

Because these are granted documents the State can attach all sorts of silly or onerous conditions on the person holding the document.

See, there is a Constitutional right to own a firearm but now the State controls who can buy and carry a firearm.

[LittleRed]

Sounds like Iowa has some unfriendly gun laws that Iowans should work to change.

The issue of a breathalyzer seems to run contrary to the 4th and 5th amendments rather than the 2nd.

Fourth:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This argument doesn't work so well when driving since driving is considered a "privilege". For that privilege you agree to a breath test, insurance, and a host of other things. If you can compel gun owners, why stop there. Let's breathalyze protesters, voters, and anyone else.

I have no idea why this would fall under the bold portion.

Fifth:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I would think a decent lawyer should be able to argue that ones own body cannot be a witness against them. Then again maybe not—that's why I am not your attorney