Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

News and events in the media and political arena relating to firearms.

Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by bigfellascott » 20 Apr 2015, 8:40 pm

Gun users could soon face the same blood alcohol restrictions as drivers and boat operators under new laws proposed by anti-gun groups, but sporting shooters say the proposed changes go too far.

This week the upper house will debate proposed changes to the Firearms Act.

Gun Control Australia Vice President Roland Browne wants the debate to include his proposal to impose a blood alcohol limit of 0.05 per cent for anyone handling a gun.

"If people can't drive a car or a power boat with alcohol in their blood like that the should not be able to handle a gun," he said.

The proposed changes have drawn strong support from some upper house MPs.

Independent MP Ivan Dean said he was considering introducing the amendment.

"It's an amendment I will certainly consider," he said.

"I'm of the view that nobody should have possession of a firearm if they have a high alcohol reading."

But gun users groups said they would strongly oppose to the move.

Andrew Judd from the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, Tasmania branch, said the current legislation went far enough.

"Under the current legislation you cannot be in possession of a firearm whilst under the influence of alcohol," he said.

Mr Judd said he had no memory of an alcohol-related gun accident at any club in Tasmania.

"There's been a written and unwritten rule of gun safety for many years which is that guns and alcohol don't mix and we've self regulated for many years," he said.

He said enforcing the proposed rule changes would be very difficult.

"At what stage does a police officer bring out a breathalyser?" he said.

"Will he walk into a hunting camp for instance and breathalyse everybody there?"

But Mr Browne said the current legislation only covered drunkenness and did not specify a moderate blood alcohol limit.

"The offence at the moment for being under the influence of alcohol means you have to be drunk," he said.

"Well we want to have a limit on the amount of alcohol that people can have that's a whole lot lower than that."

Mr Browne said many gun users were responsible but that the law needed to cover those who were not.

He has sent the proposal to members of the upper house.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-20/f ... ry/6406270
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by North East » 20 Apr 2015, 8:48 pm

Well you can't drive a car over .05 so no reason you should be in control of a firearm.
Browning BL-22 lever action...open sights
T3 Varmint .204 Ruger...Meopta Meostar 4-16X44
T3 Lite .30-06 Sprg...Aimpoint Hunter 1X red dot

....that will do me
North East
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 685
Victoria

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by deye243 » 20 Apr 2015, 8:50 pm

i don't drink anymore so don't give a :drinks:
User avatar
deye243
Captain
Captain
 
Posts: 2616
Victoria

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by FuzzyM » 20 Apr 2015, 8:51 pm

Not sure what I think.
I don't drink personally.
I don't think a 0.05 limit is a terrible idea.
Plenty of drunk blokes out in the bush with guns.

Dunno though, don't really want firearms laws to get any tougher overall.
User avatar
FuzzyM
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 328
Victoria

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by anthillinside » 20 Apr 2015, 8:58 pm

FFS, I'll conceived proposal.
And just how are they going to do that?
If at a range you've driven there so >0.5 is going to be highly unlikely.
Out hunting how? a booze bus on every ridge in the country?
They are going t have to spend a fortune training and certifying park officers to administer BA tests.
There's always room for at least one more gun in my safe.
There's always room for one more safe in my house.
User avatar
anthillinside
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 375
Victoria

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Oldbloke » 20 Apr 2015, 9:04 pm

No problem as far as Im concerned. "Will he walk into a hunting camp for instance and breathalyse everybody there?" That sentence worries me, if my rifle is in its case in the boot of my car (ammo locked away too) and the key is in my pocket, will I be considered to be in posession? If the answer is yes, (& I think it would be yes) means I need to restrict my intake while in camp. That would piss me off, not that I normally drink that much.
The greatest invention in the history of man is beer.
https://youtu.be/2v3QrUvYj-Y
SSAA, the powerful gun lobby. :lol: :lol: :lol: Now I'm a member. :unknown:
Hunt safe. A bit more bang is better.
User avatar
Oldbloke
Field Marshal
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 13397
Victoria

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Baronvonrort » 20 Apr 2015, 9:23 pm

The way I understand the current law is we have zero blood alcohol when handling a firearm.
www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_ ... 2/s64.html

Does Roland Browne from Gun control Australia realise we currently have a zero BAC and he wants to raise it to 0.05?
Baronvonrort
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 908
New South Wales

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by bigfellascott » 20 Apr 2015, 9:29 pm

Baronvonrort wrote:The way I understand the current law is we have zero blood alcohol when handling a firearm.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... 2/s64.html

Does Roland Browne from Gun control Australia realise we currently have a zero BAC and he wants to raise it to 0.05?



Exactly how I read it too - cheers Roland not a bad idea at all! :lol:
User avatar
bigfellascott
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 5289
-

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by anthillinside » 20 Apr 2015, 9:41 pm

If the answer is yes, (& I think it would be yes)

I suspect you'd be right, but that opens a real can of worms.
Sitting in your lounge room keys in pocket, drunk as a skunk ...
Your Guns in the safe ... your in possession … car in the driveway … your in control.
Our laws say you don’t actually have to be caught in the act;
A police officer can also require you to provide a sample of breath if they reasonably believe you were driving the vehicle earlier, even if you are not driving it at the time. Once again it is an offence to refuse to comply with this request.
If you think about WE’RE SCREWED
There's always room for at least one more gun in my safe.
There's always room for one more safe in my house.
User avatar
anthillinside
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 375
Victoria

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Harper » 21 Apr 2015, 7:17 pm

I'll third an understanding that we already have an effective zero limit.

Raise it to 0.05 by all means :mrgreen:
Savage 14/114 American Classic 30-06 Springfield
Savage Axis 25-06 Remington
User avatar
Harper
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 281
Northern Territory

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by lole » 21 Apr 2015, 7:21 pm

"I'm of the view that nobody should have possession of a firearm if they have a high alcohol reading."

You and everyone else you knob. Including us shooters.

They say these things we're all a bunch of pissed idiots swinging guns around at night waiting for an accident to happen.
User avatar
lole
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 359
New South Wales

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Baronvonrort » 23 Apr 2015, 3:00 pm

bigfellascott wrote:
Baronvonrort wrote:The way I understand the current law is we have zero blood alcohol when handling a firearm.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... 2/s64.html

Does Roland Browne from Gun control Australia realise we currently have a zero BAC and he wants to raise it to 0.05?



Exactly how I read it too - cheers Roland not a bad idea at all! :lol:


I was reading the Greens firearm policy where it mentions disqualifying someone for a firearms license for 5 years if they have an AVO taken out against them,Bob Carr increased this to 10 years because he wanted to be tough on guns so the green policy actually reduces this from 10 to 5 years.
I pointed this out to a green supporter who went really quiet.

It's funny how ignorant of the current laws many of these gun grabbers are.
Baronvonrort
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 908
New South Wales

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Spooner » 24 Apr 2015, 8:51 am

As demonstrated countless times none of them have any idea what they're talking about.

And I don't mean that like a generic jibe at them. I mean literally.

They have no experience with firearms.
Do not know existing laws and penalties.
Do not know the common views of shooters.
Know nothing really.

They see an article on crime involving a gun and that's their basis for everything. The articles usually written by someone equally uninformed as well.

Something which just came to mind..... Remember the guy who posted a picture of some ear buds and asked people to confirm his understanding that they were rubber bullets? :roll:
User avatar
Spooner
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 111
Northern Territory

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Pennsylvania Yank » 04 May 2015, 10:06 pm

On the surface, anyone opposed to this might seem unreasonable, or even downright idiotic. Of course, that's the idea behind many progressive policies. For example, we really do want to ensure our kids eat a healthy lunch, but that perfectly rational notion becomes far less palatable when it is your child who comes home from school with a warning note, simply because you dared to put a cupcake in his lunchbox.

We must begin these types of conversations with the provable assertion that left wing/progressives are ideologically driven control freaks. It appears to me that the randomness of the checks, and the vague, open-ended nature of the law as written, means that it is probably a lot more about intimidation and control, and about scoring cheap political points, than it is about trying to increase the level of public safety.

My default position is normally to oppose these types of laws which essentially assume all citizens are potential criminals, and which give law enforcement yet another tool to violate our right to privacy, and our desire as free people to be left alone.
Pennsylvania Yank
Private
Private
 
Posts: 57
United States of America

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by anthillinside » 04 May 2015, 10:20 pm

Pennsylvania Yank wrote:On the surface, anyone opposed to this might seem unreasonable, or even downright idiotic. Of course, that's the idea behind many progressive policies. For example, we really do want to ensure our kids eat a healthy lunch, but that perfectly rational notion becomes far less palatable when it is your child who comes home from school with a warning note, simply because you dared to put a cupcake in his lunchbox.

We must begin these types of conversations with the provable assertion that left wing/progressives are control freaks. It appears to me that the randomness of the checks, and the vague, open-ended nature of the law as written, means that it is probably a lot more about intimidation and control, and about scoring cheap political points, than it is about trying to increase the level of public safety.

My default position is normally to oppose these types of laws which essentially assume all citizens are potential criminals, and which give law enforcement yet another tool to violate our right to privacy, and our desire as free people to be left alone.

I agree 100%
Problem is, here we have no clearly defined rights we can use as a backbone for a fight.
Maybe because this country started as a penal colony we ARE all potential criminals.
Of course I don't believe that for one second.
But I do wonder f it is the reason we get pushed around so easily by the "authorities"
Have we inherited some form of historical unquestioning obedience to authority?
I think not… I hope not… I pray not.
There's always room for at least one more gun in my safe.
There's always room for one more safe in my house.
User avatar
anthillinside
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 375
Victoria

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by 1290 » 05 May 2015, 8:37 am

In vic the laborites were all for RBTs in parliament..... then they got in and went quiet. They did however remove testing from (CFMEU) building sites.....

before even considering a rolly brown proposal, you need to ask the question of who the heck this pathetic little boy is, who does he represent (are there actually more than 3 bona fide financial members in his club??) Who funds him? The same who funds peters? why oh why do they give him so much cred....he is a lawyer - their profession requires them to deceive others into believing their client did not commit a crime... regardless of the facts..... on top of all he is well known to be vehemently against firearms and therefore extremely biased. In a just society the opinions of such an imbecile should be ignored.

Lastly if he is really concerned about major public health issues (which is what they call 'firearms') then there are at least 500 other causes of death in this great nation more significant and numerous than 'guns'...about 400 people die in Australia every single day...... a lot less than one of thos... a lot less... if through firearm use, accidental or criminal...
User avatar
1290
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1336
Victoria

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Chronos » 05 May 2015, 8:49 am

Baronvonrort wrote:The way I understand the current law is we have zero blood alcohol when handling a firearm.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... 2/s64.html

Does Roland Browne from Gun control Australia realise we currently have a zero BAC and he wants to raise it to 0.05?


Tell me where it states a zero BAC?

What it says is

"(1) A person must not handle or use a firearm while the person is under the influence of alcohol or any other drug."

What's understood to be under the influence? When it comes to operating s vehicle you are judged to be under the influence when your blood alcohol exceeds .05%.

This is a broadly accepted limit and I'd argue that the same would apply to the handling of firearms. In fact I've proved it anecdotally whilst leaving a rifle range, firearms in my possession having had 2 full strength beers in 2 hrs and being roadside random breath tested, registered under .05 and let go on my way. The officer asked where I had come from before performing the breath test. He then asked if I had consumed any alcohol and if there were firearms in the car. I answered yes to both questions and offered my firearms license which was not inspected.

As you say we are already covered by legislation regarding the handling of firearms whilst under the influence just as we are for the operation of a motor vehicle, this also applies to private property but how often do breath tests take place on bush blocks or farms?

Chronos
User avatar
Chronos
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2082
New South Wales

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Harts » 05 May 2015, 10:30 am

Oldbloke wrote:"Will he walk into a hunting camp for instance and breathalyse everybody there?" That sentence worries me, if my rifle is in its case in the boot of my car (ammo locked away too) and the key is in my pocket, will I be considered to be in posession?


My concern as well.

I wouldn't object to it in the context of operating firearms while under the influence, but it would have to be crystal clear and rock solid as to what situation it applies to. I'm talking to you have to have a loaded rifle in your hands at the time to be able to be breathalysed.

Anything outside would need to be strictly off limits to them.
User avatar
Harts
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 159
South Australia

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by bluerob » 05 May 2015, 10:45 am

anthillinside wrote:FFS, I'll conceived proposal.
And just how are they going to do that?
If at a range you've driven there so >0.5 is going to be highly unlikely.
Out hunting how? a booze bus on every ridge in the country?
They are going t have to spend a fortune training and certifying park officers to administer BA tests.


Mate, one night I was out fighting fires on some blocks. We'd lost about 4,500 acres before we got it under control. Our local CWA came out with sandwiches, cakes and a few cases of beer. Some blokes hadn't had a thing to eat for 2 days. This is a local brigade, relying on surrounding farmers to help out.

On the way back into town, RBT was setup, especially for us. Did a lot for local relationships with the blue line.
bluerob
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 342
New South Wales

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Deco » 05 May 2015, 11:47 am

bluerob wrote:On the way back into town, RBT was setup, especially for us.


No good deed goes unpunished.
Browning X-Bolt Hunter in .270 Winchester
User avatar
Deco
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 113
South Australia

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Carter » 05 May 2015, 11:56 am

Done in the vain hope it will result in a few people losing there license IMO.
User avatar
Carter
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 213
Queensland

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by 1290 » 05 May 2015, 12:30 pm

Carter wrote:Done in the vain hope it will result in a few people losing there license IMO.

more so a desperate hope.... any reason, any excuse to tighten the screws..... I wonder if this alcohol thing is evidence based? was there a case where 'a' gun owner was 'under the influence' and therefore laws need to change, or simply a matter of change the laws 'just in case'.....
User avatar
1290
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1336
Victoria

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Old Fart » 06 May 2015, 11:36 am

1290 wrote:I wonder if this alcohol thing is evidence based? was there a case where 'a' gun owner was 'under the influence' and therefore laws need to change, or simply a matter of change the laws 'just in case'.....


Knowing them...

'saw it in a movie'
'read it somewhere'
'heard it from a guy'
'came up with the idea one night myself'

Pick one, all the "evidence" they need to start something :roll:
Winchester Model 70 Featherweight - .270 Winchester Short Magnum
Uberti 1873 Short Rifle - .45 Colt
Winchester Model 70 Coyote Varmint - .22-250 Remington
User avatar
Old Fart
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 261
South Australia

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Baronvonrort » 08 May 2015, 2:45 pm

Chronos wrote:
Baronvonrort wrote:The way I understand the current law is we have zero blood alcohol when handling a firearm.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... 2/s64.html

Does Roland Browne from Gun control Australia realise we currently have a zero BAC and he wants to raise it to 0.05?


Tell me where it states a zero BAC?

What it says is

"(1) A person must not handle or use a firearm while the person is under the influence of alcohol or any other drug."

What's understood to be under the influence?

Chronos


Having alcohol in your system is what I understand to be under the influence, when people mention 0.02 or 0.05 they are talking about levels of intoxication or influence, the fact it mentions influence and not intoxication levels indicates zero BAC.

Alcohol appears in your breath when your body cannot process the alcohol in your system fast enough,when it appears on your breath you are under the influence.

At least some will be able to enjoy a drink while cleaning-maintaining their firearms if this 0.05 intoxication level gets through.
Baronvonrort
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 908
New South Wales

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Chronos » 08 May 2015, 3:21 pm

Baronvonrort wrote:
Chronos wrote:
Baronvonrort wrote:The way I understand the current law is we have zero blood alcohol when handling a firearm.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/ ... 2/s64.html

Does Roland Browne from Gun control Australia realise we currently have a zero BAC and he wants to raise it to 0.05?


Tell me where it states a zero BAC?

What it says is

"(1) A person must not handle or use a firearm while the person is under the influence of alcohol or any other drug."

What's understood to be under the influence?

Chronos


Having alcohol in your system is what I understand to be under the influence, when people mention 0.02 or 0.05 they are talking about levels of intoxication or influence, the fact it mentions influence and not intoxication levels indicates zero BAC.

Alcohol appears in your breath when your body cannot process the alcohol in your system fast enough,when it appears on your breath you are under the influence.

At least some will be able to enjoy a drink while cleaning-maintaining their firearms if this 0.05 intoxication level gets through.


yeah i'm not sure what the semantics are regarding the difference between intoxication and influence but it's possible that you can have alcohol in your system and not be under the influence. my opinion would be that you are only under the influence when you are impaired by the substance in your system hence tho old roadside tests pre breath testing

i disagree though when you say "when people mention 0.02 or 0.05 they are talking about levels of intoxication or influence" these numbers are simply a measure of the amount of alcohol in your bloodstream, nothing to do with intoxication. the level of intoxication is dependent on other factors which is why an alcoholic can have a high range blood alcohol level and appear not to be intoxicated.

"Alcohol appears in your breath when your body cannot process the alcohol in your system fast enough,when it appears on your breath you are under the influence"

I disagree again here. alcohol appears in your breath because it's in your blood. alcohol enters the stomach and is absorbed into the blood stream directly where it travels around the body, to the brain where it may impair the drinker, to the lungs where it evaporates into your breath and is expelled and to your liver where it is processed/broken down. it appears on your breath, but again you personally may not be impaired at say .02 or .05% BAC. the numbers are arbetary, set to stop the 90% of people who's driving skills may be impaired at that level



Chronos
User avatar
Chronos
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
 
Posts: 2082
New South Wales

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by 1290 » 08 May 2015, 4:48 pm

The wording "... under the influence" is designed to be vague and therefore be interpreted by the enforcers and the law courts... up to their discretion and interpretation - which is wrong. Just like the assessment of a permits to acquire, its up to the interpretation of the staffer who processes the application (in consultation with their secret licensing policy document(s)) - such matters should be clearly detailed in the legislation such as you may own 1 or 1000 firearms...but that would be too easy for the mere licensees...

I would interpret under the influence as exactly that; the ALCOHOL is influencing you and your judgement....others may interpret 'detectable levels as placing you under the influence.... others may consider the driving benchmark of 0.05 :unknown:
User avatar
1290
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1336
Victoria

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by on_one_wheel » 08 May 2015, 7:50 pm

It is my understanding that there in no limits set sa such for alcohol while using a firearm.

But somewhere I read that " you must be in control of your firearm " ie , not full blown maggoted rolling around in your own vomit with your rifle.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3958
South Australia

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by on_one_wheel » 08 May 2015, 8:01 pm

1290 wrote:I would interpret under the influence as exactly that; the ALCOHOL is influencing you and your judgement


That what I think to ... to the point that you are no longer in controll... inebriated ... If I ever found myself in court for being pissy with a firearm thats what my lawer would argue.

I wish we had the sobriety test here, I recon that I'd nail it after 1 1/2 700mm bottles of Bundy :drinks:

Has anyone found the wording in the act ?

It's a shame laws and acts are not black and white, I'm sure it's that way just to ensure that those with enough money to lawer up can get off.
Gun control requires concentration and a steady hand
User avatar
on_one_wheel
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3958
South Australia

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by Title_II » 09 May 2015, 8:46 am

North East wrote:Well you can't drive a car over .05 so no reason you should be in control of a firearm.


I drink while carrying a firearm. Not handling one, but carrying a sidearm.

We have giant BBQs (100 people) where there is beer and shooting of BB guns, airsoft, and .22s under strictly controlled range rules. Nobody gets drunk. When we run the .22s and the handguns/SMGs we start early and then shut down the real guns after about an hour or so to relax with a bit more with beer and food. Then we just keep it BB guns (mostly for the kids) and airsoft. But we don't go lock up our sidearms or anything. We don't get drunk, and if we did we wouldn't pick fights, or draw firearms and wave them around anyway. If you are afraid you will drink beer and get angry and challenge someone to a fight then you need to grow up and learn what it is to be a man. If you get drunk and head to the range, well that sounds pretty dumb as well.

At one of the parties we have all the kids shoot age appropriate handguns (a 9 year old girl handed my arse to me) and all kids (even 4 years old) get to shoot full auto .22 converted M16 with silencer. It's so long the younger kids can't point it in the wrong direction, but Dad helps them hold it on the table anyway. There is video but it is in a forum that requires registration.
User avatar
Title_II
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1430
United States of America

Re: Proposal for Firearms users to face random breath tests

Post by KWhorenet » 09 May 2015, 9:14 am

Ummmkayyyy
User avatar
KWhorenet
Sergeant
Sergeant
 
Posts: 679
-

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Firearms related media and politics
cron