By Chris L. Jenkins
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 16, 2005; Page B01
RICHMOND, Feb. 15 -- The Virginia General Assembly is considering a bill to impose strict blood alcohol limits on hunters, angering gun enthusiasts who say the legislation unjustly targets their right to bear arms.
It is illegal in Virginia to "hunt with firearms" when under the influence of alcohol or drugs. But Senate Bill 1149 further clarifies the state code so that a hunter who had a blood alcohol content of .02 would be guilty of a misdemeanor. That's tougher than the state's drunken driving standard. Motorists are legally drunk when their blood alcohol content is .08.
The bill passed unanimously in the Senate this month. It is scheduled to be heard by a House Committee this week.
"Obviously everyone wants those who hunt to be safe at all times . . . that's really the only purpose of this bill," said Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle (R-Virginia Beach), the bill's sponsor and an avid hunter.
Stolle said that initially he had set the legal limit at .08 to match the drunken driving standard, but Sen. Thomas K. Norment Jr. (R-James City) successfully proposed the lower level. Norment said there should be a "zero tolerance" alcohol level for hunting.
State officials at the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries said they requested the legislation because the code regarding alcohol and hunting is vague. The state statute says, "It shall be unlawful for any person to hunt with firearms in the Commonwealth of Virginia while under the influence of alcohol, or . . . any narcotic drug."
"We wanted to make it as close as possible to the driving code and the boating code," said Charlie Sledd, program development director for the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
The law "isn't very specific," he said. "We needed a better enforcement tool for [game wardens] in dealing with particular circumstances that might involve hunting while intoxicated."
The bill's fate is uncertain because groups that support the rights of gun owners say that the blood alcohol standard the bill sets is much too low. They point out that if the commonwealth trusted drivers to have a low amount of alcohol in their blood, it should trust hunters as well.
"I'd have no problem with the .08, but .02 is ridiculous," said Philip Van Cleave, president of Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights advocacy group. "You can reach .02 by taking some cough syrup."
Several delegates said the bill might raise constitutional issues because it holds that persons arrested for hunting while intoxicated have consented to a breathalyzer test by the mere act of hunting. The right to hunt is guaranteed by the Virginia constitution, and some lawmakers said the state cannot impose such "implied consent" on hunters in the same way it is applied to drivers and boaters to take a breathalyzer test.
"It could be a problem if . . . the bill says that by merely hunting you're consenting to be searched," said Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax), who sits on the Courts of Justice Committee, which is scheduled to review the bill. "Philosophically, that would be tough for me to overcome."
Supporters countered that a game warden or police officer would have to have reasonable suspicion before checking the sobriety of a hunter.
"It would be no different than a traffic stop," said Norment, who is also an avid hunter.
Scholars said it would be hard to challenge the constitutionality of the bill because the state code allows lawmakers to make certain judgments on regulating behavior.
"It's hard to see how a court could limit the General Assembly's ability to make certain decisions on public health," said A.E. Dick Howard, a law professor at the University of Virginia and state constitution expert.
Virginia would be one of a handful of states -- including Maryland -- considering legislation that would clamp down on the mix of hunting and alcohol. A bill in New York would set the blood alcohol content level there at .08. Wisconsin is considering a provision, similar to the one proposed in Virginia, that would allow authorities to test hunters for alcohol.
I'm not happy for several reasons. First, and foremost, this bill associates hunting and drinking. I know that there are some rowdy nights at the deer camp from time to time, but the fact of the matter is that hunting accidents are down, and drunken hunters are causing few problems. In fact, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Just about every active anti group in the state is licking their chops at this solution to a problem that doesn't exist. They are saying, "See? If hunters weren't slobs, the Senate wouldn't have proposed this bill in the first place!"
Second of all, a law already exits prohibiting those under the influence from hunting. Not only does this new bill make it a crime to have even a minute amount of alcohol in your system, but it gives the GW's "implied consent" to take a breathalyzer test or search your car/truck.
And lastly, .02% is absurdly low! I'm sure quite a few people wake up at 4 AM to head for the woods after downing a few drinks the night before, yet they are not impaired in any way. And forget about OTC cold medicines. Why this is cause for concern when drivers can have four times as much is beyond me. In 2003, Virginia had 361 drunk-driving-related deaths. I'm having trouble locating hunting accident statistics for that year, but I am almost certain that hunting deaths were only a few percent of those from drunk driving. And most of those had nothing to do with alcohol anyway!
The Senate has passed it and referred it to the House Committee for Courts and Justice. Virginians need to take action, and everyone else needs to keep an eye on their state's laws. This seems like a common sense sort of bill, but as we say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Consider the real after-effects very carefully before making up your mind.
Part of me says do it. You might think that theres not a lot of drinking and hunting but I think its more than people think unfortunately. Clean up hunting to where anti's CANNOT complain
Part of me says don't do it. You already got laws into effect that says don't drink and hunt, on top of laws that will see arrests and jail time for accidents and crimes that happen in relations to hunting.
I don't think they can enforce the laws they have now. Why make more? I don't want to be in the woods with someone who has been drinking and is carrying a rifle but making that law I don't think will amount to anything - If it feels good do it!!
__________________
If you give a politician an enema you can easily hide them in a bread box.
Apparently there were six hunting-related deaths during Virginia's 2001-2002 seasons. Trying to find out if alcohol was involved in any of them. Still looking for more recent statistics.
Hmmmm, Wisconsin had its lowest season ever for hunting deaths and injuries...and I thik one of the deaths was accidental self inflicted, I'd have to check.
I don't like the sound of this, when we have lunch in the woods at noon time, I like to have 1 can of beer with my lunch. I don't think that 1 can of beer is going to affect my judgement, never has, never will. The way they are talking with a .02 limit, I would be breaking the law ?? with 1 can ??
__________________
It' s a dog eat dog world, and I' m wearing Milkbone underwear
I don't believe it is a problem here in WI that has contributed to the death of a hunter in recent years.
The state publishes a list of all the hunting related shootings resulting in injury or death. I don't recall reading any to do with alcohol in recent years.
I never drink and hunt. I may have a beer or two with my dinner after hunting but that is it. Heck it takes me an hour or two to finish two beers after a day in the woods or mountains. I have never hunted with a hang over because I just never drink that much.
I do know guys like some say that have a beer with lunch.
None of the group I have ever hunted with did that. Just has always the camp thinking, No drinking until the hunting is over. I have never seen a drunk in the woods hunting. I am sure it happens but I just haven"t seen it.
The .02 is extremely low. Like it said, cough syrup would do you in and your busted for no good reason.
They say " a game warden or police officer would have to have reasonable suspicion before checking the sobriety of a hunter."
At least at a traffic stop you have to have some probable cause for the stop and field sobriety test.
Would it be just random checks to establish the reasonable suspicion like the smell or slurred speech? Are they going to draw blood or urine for medications and non-prescription drugs?
It has been stated that there are enough laws on the books to deal with these problems. I agree..
It"s like new gun laws. If you are not enforcing the existing ones enough to solve the problem, start doing that first before creating new laws.
__________________
Now you have to picture a combination of PeeWEE Herman and Wally Cox but with less muscle tone, trying to be intimidating None of this is funny! Message edited by Cougar Mag -- 1/7/2005 1:16:42 AM >/b]
Alcohol & Hunting
