2015 WDFW Proposed Legislation: Hunting Under the Influence

[Mike450r]

I am against it.  New laws or amending existing laws should be based on a very real and serious need and I do not see that here.

[Special T]

So far I have not hear a good Pro argument. I was kinda expecting to hear some examples or situations that we would all benifit from.

[bigtex]

(b) Hunting while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in the first degree is a class C felony. Upon conviction, the department shall revoke and suspend all of the person's hunting licenses and privileges for ten years.

If you are a felon, you are also going to lose your right to own a weapon and any concealed carry permit you have as well as potentially 5 years in prison - not to mention tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

The felony penalty is for a second time offender.

[bigtex]

I hardly ever drink, but I am now firmly opposed to this legislation.  The scenarios others have described point out some of the issues...a guy has a beer in hunting camp...could a LEO claim you were technically hunting if its still daylight and a gun is nearby?  Probably, if he wants to be a jerk. A couple guys pheasant hunting have a mid-afternoon break with a beer, resume hunting after lunch...now they all lose their license for 2 years if a LEO wants to be a jackwagon?  No thanks.   I would actually be terrified to even have alcohol in a hunting camp if this law passes.

This is defnitely one of those laws that affects the honest guy way more than it will anybody that actually poses a public safety problem.

The definition I provided for hunting is for ALL state laws not just the proposed changes to the hunting under the influence laws.

Your scenario of being at camp having a beer with the gun nearby is crazy. With that scenario then everybody sitting in camp all across the state during rifle season without orange on would be getting cited for no hunter orange. And I am sitting here right now saying that has never happened.

There is not an officer in this state that would say a bunch of guys sitting in hunting camp are actively hunting.

[bigtex]

BT- driving and boating are pretty simple to prove as compared to hunting.  As long as we have open carry with no law (at least that I know off, but certainly could be wrong) stipulating it's illegal to carry while intoxicated, I can see many of these cases being tough to prove.  I'm sure you've been involved in many cases where proving actual intent was difficult and made the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. Clear definitions of the law make a LEO's job much easier as I'm sure you know.  To much gray area in this one, and lawyers make a living of off "gray" areas.

Fist off Its not illegal to carry while intoxicated. Had that conversatationwith a leo a while back.

No law in WA that says you can't be intoxicated and carrying a firearm!

An assumption on my part. Interesting. However, it is certainly a federal crime to be in possession of a firearm while in possession of a controlled substance, such as marijuana. But, we digress.

Actually that's not true either. Simply possessing a firearm and a controlled substance isn't a federal crime. The offense you are referring to states it's unlawful for an unlawful user or addict of an illegal drug to possess a firearm. Now obviously 99.9999% of people who possess illegal drugs are unlawful users of that drug. However, when it comes to getting a conviction the prosecutor must prove the person is an unlawful user or addict of the drug. I could walk around all day long with a gun in one hand a bag of marijuana in the other and not be violating federal laws, until an officer somehow can prove I am a user/addict.

[pianoman9701]

I've had a few, so bare with me. Don't worry; I'm not hunting!

When you consider the number of people who are convicted of DUI due in large part to the word of the arresting officer that the person was under the influence even when blowing under the 0.08 limit, it sounds like a dangerous law to me. Are we trying to create felons or to make hunting safer? And, is this presently a big problem? I haven't seen it. Are we passing a law to solve a problem which for all intents and purposes, isn't a big problem? Personally, I don't have any evidence that it is. 

[bigtex]

This is a joke of a bill, from the way it was written to the way it gets presented.  Even on this site.  I doubt this gets past any part of the senate or house.

As I posted earlier, this bill is modeled after the current boating law, everything from the mandatory test to the citation for refusing the test.

The boating law was enacted in 2013. The Republican controlled Senate passed the bill 46-2. The Democrat controlled House passed the bill 84-13.

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

Thanks tex!  The bill won't pass.  As others have said there's no serious need for it.  Like there is for boating under the influence.  Much higher rate of DUI and bui then drunks hunting. 

And btw in wa, conceal carry  isn't legal if your drunk or high.  Not sure of penalties but they can't take the firearm.

[Elkaholic daWg]

I've had a few, so bare with me. Don't worry; I'm not hunting!

When you consider the number of people who are convicted of DUI due in large part to the word of the arresting officer that the person was under the influence even when blowing under the 0.08 limit, it sounds like a dangerous law to me. Are we trying to create felons or to make hunting safer? And, is this presently a big problem? I haven't seen it. Are we passing a law to solve a problem which for all intents and purposes, isn't a big problem? Personally, I don't have any evidence that it is. 

[Bofire]

  I am for the "idea" of this bill, no one should be drunk or high and go hunting, but this wording seems to leave a lot of definition in the eyes of the officer.  When are you hunting and camping? when just hunting? when just camping with a gun? I cannot support this as written.
Carl

[BOWHUNTER45]

let me put it to you this way ..Anytime you go to court to see a judge and guns are involved they are all out to take them away from you . So in my opinion these laws these keep coming up with are to do just that . The other problem I have is all these laws involving guns and law abiding citizens have NO IMPACT ON GUNS ON THE STREETS . Which are the real issues here .. Make some laws on getting guns from criminals and find a way to prosecute these drug dealers who sit on T.V shows telling us how much heroin they are selling and how much money they are making and they are still in the chair telling us about it ..this type of stuff just sends sparks to my brain ..any law taking away our rights to do something will never have my vote to support it ! Little off topic but everything bothers me lately 

[bowbuild]

To end the whole "is he hunting" debate. Here is the current WA definition of "to hunt"

"To hunt" and its derivatives means an effort to kill, injure, harass, harvest, or capture a wild animal or wild bird

Yes, I was just looking for that definition, and wonder if "hunt" even fits. If there are no animals present are you truly hunting?.....or just walking with a weapon?? Just a thought, technicalities are are something to consider.

Some may say this is rediclious but here is a example..... (changing the subject as a example) I have talked to wardens that have told me that to have a firearm in my rig while bowhunting is a crime, and I say that is B.S. You can have a firearm in your vehicle, it is not until you step out and persue that by the definition above that you begin to "hunt." If that was not true every warden could write you for hunting from your rig simply for driving down the road and having any weapon. Maybe Bigtex can clarify.....whether I am right or wrong, I am very interested in his opinion.

Bowbuild

[csaaphill]

Ya against it for all I see is a way for LEO to abuse it then were the ones who will have to lose time money and effort to fight it. Then lose more time and effort to pay for it if were found guilty. Money being more the operative word. ANything too that will make you felon on something as amiguis as this is only slated to use law to disarm us.
We truly need to be ever watchfull of these feel good legislations like this and dissect them and see the true intent and not sign on just because it may look good on the surface.

[idahohuntr]

I hardly ever drink, but I am now firmly opposed to this legislation.  The scenarios others have described point out some of the issues...a guy has a beer in hunting camp...could a LEO claim you were technically hunting if its still daylight and a gun is nearby?  Probably, if he wants to be a jerk. A couple guys pheasant hunting have a mid-afternoon break with a beer, resume hunting after lunch...now they all lose their license for 2 years if a LEO wants to be a jackwagon?  No thanks.   I would actually be terrified to even have alcohol in a hunting camp if this law passes.

This is defnitely one of those laws that affects the honest guy way more than it will anybody that actually poses a public safety problem.

The definition I provided for hunting is for ALL state laws not just the proposed changes to the hunting under the influence laws.

Your scenario of being at camp having a beer with the gun nearby is crazy. With that scenario then everybody sitting in camp all across the state during rifle season without orange on would be getting cited for no hunter orange. And I am sitting here right now saying that has never happened.

There is not an officer in this state that would say a bunch of guys sitting in hunting camp are actively hunting.

I disagree bigtex...we've got plenty of examples from uc just how clueless and out of touch many natural resource LE's are...if a guy is willing to cite a mentally handicapped kid for no fishing license I guarantee you there are a 1000 more officers in this state who would be happy to harass and maybe even cite hunters in/near camp with a beer during hunting season.

I regularly defend many of wdfw's actions...but one area I can not stand is the LE side...I think about 75% of them need fired immediately...just wipe the slate clean.  They certainly do not need a law like this    Speaking of which...has anyone presented the NEED for this law?  Are we seeing a lot of people injured/harmed by drunk hunters? Such that we need to close this "loophole" whereby they don't have to take breathalyzer tests or whatever this stupid law is supposed to fix?  Bigtex, can you provide some supporting incidents in WA where someone was injured or harmed by an intoxicated hunter?  I'm sure it has happened before, so maybe I'm just an anomaly having not really seen/heard of any injuries that were directly related to drinking/drugs and hunting. 

[csaaphill]

not to support the other end of those that said they think this is good, but ya there was an incident here in 2011 or 2012 or so where two guys were camping and drinking a fight broke out and the other shot his friend. he did drive to town though and admit his offence and is now in Prison, or has been giving a leniount sentence.
On our end though that was the first time I've ever heard of this in all the years I've been hunting.
We've always had some beer in camp maybe some snake bite medicine as dad would put it for after the hunt! and never shot no one.