Utah: Drunk Driving Bill Has Unintended Negative Consequences on Gun Rights

[Dave70968]

"A man's home is his castle"?---NOT ANY MORE! IMHO, this is yet another case of the gun gabbers/haters running "gun control" down our throats(by any means possible) and upping the ante on the penalties we can run afoul of. Also IMHO, the gun grabbers/haters are trying to make the cost(monitary/legal costs) of owning weapons for self defense, sporting uses, etc. so high that some may eventually have to forgo their 2nd Amendment rights and gun ownership.

I doubt this was meant to be a shot (ha!) at the Second Amendment, especially in Utah; rather, it's another attempt to clamp down on alcohol. In Utah, having a discussion in the car about the relative merits of different varieties of hops probably constitutes DUI.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

They've got this bill bass ackwards. Being under the influence should not be a cause for not carrying a gun. Being under the influence while carrying a gun is the problem. It needs to be about drinking while carrying. Such a law would not infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms - it would infringe instead upon drinking intoxicants while carrying which is not protected in the Constitution as a right. There can be no negative arms related consequences to being under the influence. It needs to be only about being under the influence.

It might be a tough concept to grasp, but if you think about it, it does make sense.

Woody

 

[Dave70968]

Or we could just, y'know, hold people responsible for actual misconduct...which hasn't been a problem to date.

People who go to the trouble to get carry permits tend to be the responsible sort. Yes, you'll find an occasional bad actor in any population, but the systems we have in place have proven effective in the minuscule fraction of permitholders who behave badly.