[Patriots] I missed this one

Discussion in 'Indiana Glockers' started by HK45Mark23, Feb 3, 2010.

  1. HK45Mark23


    Likes Received:
    Aug 17, 2005
    Evansvile / Newburgh, Indiana
    This bill does not have anything to do with guns, but it's an example of legislation that can have far reaching implications on citizens.

    SB 247 reads this way: Ignition interlock devices. Provides that, in addition to any other criminal sentence imposed by a court, a court may prohibit a person convicted of operating while intoxicated from operating a motor vehicle for at least 90 days if the vehicle is not equipped with an ignition interlock device. Specifies that the court's authority to require an ignition interlock device as part of a sentence does not affect the requirements concerning ignition interlock devices required as a condition of receiving a probationary license. Makes conforming amendments. Repeals superseded provisions.

    I didn't catch it because of it's title "Ignition interlock devices". This measure was stopped last year and I discussed it with Rep. Suzanne Crouch as to why I opposed it.

    None of us want drunk drivers on the road, but if this passes the House and becomes law I can assure you that a lot of folks will become victims of this that should not be.

    For instance a person who may be out with their spouse for an anniversary dinner date or at a wedding or just a simple dining out affair and have some wine or beer with their meal and is very close to the now very low acceptable alcohol level of .08.

    Now they are on their way home and very much capable of operating a vehicle, but as they proceed through an intersection someone approaching from the side blows a stop sign and hits them. Who do you think is going to be most apt to be in trouble?

    I was told by a legislator who used to be in law enforcement that under stress a person who has alcohol in their system and would normally be under the legal limit can blow over the limit due to their metabolic rate because of the elevated anxiety.

    Now we have a person who is convicted of driving under the influence and will be required to install a very expensive device on their car. You don't think that a company that manufactures those devices would have lobbied for this, do you?

    I may be reaching here, but what if, during that time their car is equipped with this device (and by the way they have to pay for the installation and rent), has an emergency in their household. One of their family members, a child or an elderly parent, become very sick or get hurt maybe even late at night and they must get them to a medical facility and in all the excitement can't get the device to work in order for their car to start or maybe Murphy's Law kicks in and the thing fails. Was justice really served? Do you think anyone who might support this bill and would find themselves in a scenario I described then be supportive of it?

    We have DUI laws on the books. How many more ways can we enforce these infractions? We all want safety, but we must be careful on how we ask for it.

    I may take hits on this one, but we must understand that we can trap folks in a net that should not be.

    Jim and Margie
    2nd Amendment Patriots

    Patriots mailing list