wishiniwasfishin1
Well-Known Member
Negative
This is frightening
- Thread starter fish brain
- Start date
Negative
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
even if you don't answer the door?
wishiniwasfishin1
Well-Known Member
I am not sure what would happen in that scenario.
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
IMHO in time will be a non issue as it most likely will go to the supreme court and get stuck down and forced to be modified to be less intrusive, as it is fraught with a lot of legal issues as it is now.
Fish Camp
Well-Known Member
It's privilege not a right or freedom to have a drivers lisence .With that privilage comes responsable ownership of a vehicle.a senario .You go wood cuttin for the day and have the truck parked at home full of wood and are splitting the wood, listnening to tunes on the truck radio sipping on a beer from time to time .That is care and control of a motor vehicle now the new law says police have reason to come on your proporty to have you and others that may have access to care and control of viehicle's to blow in a breathalizer and if not satisfied with result take you and others away for further study.It was only five years ago that your medical # was made part of your drivers licence ,so that medical info is available to detourmin weather you get 30 days in the hole for impaired care and control.
the fog ducker
Well-Known Member
dont put words in our mouths there Springy , no ones defending drinkin n drivin is ok,
im guessing , this law would be in a case , where say , someone seen you publically intoxicated , got in a vehicle , and drove off ,
they would have probable cause to test you outside of your vehicle , even though youve been parked for a while , that I AM FOR .
not just show up at your house and start makin bs calls just cause ya have a beer in your hand after work ??
waste of tax payers dollars and our Court Systems time,,, gd lk with that...
a little bit of common sense i would hope
done here....
fd
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Let’s prosecute impaired recliner riders! You seem to keep coming back to drunk drivers while everyone else keeps trying to point out to you you’re only half right! There is no requirement to be driving anymore! Unless there are stringent requirements of Just Cause met,this is a ridiculous law. If an individual is Drunk Driving, there is no need to wait until he or she is home to take a breath sample, in fact it makes infinitely more sense to arrest him or her on the spot!
fish brain
Crew Member
Ultimately this is not about drinking and driving.
It is about the right of the police to come to your home and ask to search without cause. Yes this example includes drinking and breathalyzers, but what is next? A search of your cell phone to see if you have been speaking to someone unfriendly to the government of the day ? Once you start to hand over some of your rights willingly, it is way easier for the government to take away additional ones, reasoning that if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem. But one day it will be a problem when you don't have any rights or freedoms left. And by then it will be too late.
It is about the right of the police to come to your home and ask to search without cause. Yes this example includes drinking and breathalyzers, but what is next? A search of your cell phone to see if you have been speaking to someone unfriendly to the government of the day ? Once you start to hand over some of your rights willingly, it is way easier for the government to take away additional ones, reasoning that if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem. But one day it will be a problem when you don't have any rights or freedoms left. And by then it will be too late.
This whole law stinks, cant believe people still defend actions and laws like this under the disguise of safety and Liberals granny state ideas. SpringVelocity probably had no issues with the RCMP actions at High River AB some years ago??? Call me skeptical but when a Gov makes a law to allow unregulated entry in my castle, then assumed guilty before court, trial or any DA review/recommendation, that scares the hell out of me. Only thing scarier is the people who think that's OK. As a minority(outdoorsman) its worse.
Nuts.
HM
Nuts.
HM
scott craven
Well-Known Member
It's ******** !
an invasion of privacy and human rights.
next stop dictatorship ?
an invasion of privacy and human rights.
next stop dictatorship ?
cracked_ribs
Well-Known Member
This law should concern everyone. It will absolutely get struck down but in the meantime, it's a flagrant abuse of your right to free from unreasonable search and seizure. There is nothing illegal about going home and drinking after you get there; the fact that the goal of the law is to reduce drinking and driving deaths doesn't mean that we should accept it unquestioningly.
What if the law was "within 24 hours of driving you may be compelled to give a blood sample to prove that you have not consumed alcohol in that time"?
What if it was "anyone with a driver's license will no longer be eligible to purchase alcohol"?
What if it was "anyone at home or in public may be compelled at any time to give a breath sample, and people testing positive for alcohol will have their license suspended for 72 hours"?
Any one of those could reduce drunk driving deaths. But ordinarily our laws do not punish legal behaviour on the grounds that it could be indicative of illegal behaviour at another time, nor do we allow warrantless search and seizure without probable cause to look for behaviour which is not itself illegal, on the grounds that overall, the world would be a better place if a related illegal behaviour stopped happening.
What if the law was "within 24 hours of driving you may be compelled to give a blood sample to prove that you have not consumed alcohol in that time"?
What if it was "anyone with a driver's license will no longer be eligible to purchase alcohol"?
What if it was "anyone at home or in public may be compelled at any time to give a breath sample, and people testing positive for alcohol will have their license suspended for 72 hours"?
Any one of those could reduce drunk driving deaths. But ordinarily our laws do not punish legal behaviour on the grounds that it could be indicative of illegal behaviour at another time, nor do we allow warrantless search and seizure without probable cause to look for behaviour which is not itself illegal, on the grounds that overall, the world would be a better place if a related illegal behaviour stopped happening.
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
So I can safely assume none of you will be voting for the liberal government who passed this bill
remember who voted for your liberty come next election
https://openparliament.ca/votes/42-1/383/
remember who voted for your liberty come next election
https://openparliament.ca/votes/42-1/383/
Last edited:
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
SerengetiGuide
Well-Known Member
Ah. Because we disagree with so much SV, I’m gonna be nice one day, come over after you get home from work and pound 4 beers with ya then call you in for crazy driving. Cop shows up at your house and you get a DUI...that’s the problem with the law. You didn’t drink and drive but now you have the burden to prove your innocence.
walleyes
Crew Member
I certainly don't agree with this law as it leaves the door open for abusive police forces to interpret and abuse it as they choose.
With that said I see where it is coming from. We all know of the guys that have beat drunk driving charges even avoided criminal charges stemming from accidents while being impaired by using the excuse they drank after the accident. I know more than one guy that drove home drunk, had the police behind them but didn't stop and ran in the house grabbed a bottle and started slamming it and claiming they were sober while driving. Or the guy that got into an accident, said he grabbed the bottle after and drank and avoided the proper charges. That's is where this law is coming from, they are trying to eliminate these type of abuses. But I think there are other ways to get at the issue but being a Liberal government the more privileges they take from the population the happier they are.
With that said I see where it is coming from. We all know of the guys that have beat drunk driving charges even avoided criminal charges stemming from accidents while being impaired by using the excuse they drank after the accident. I know more than one guy that drove home drunk, had the police behind them but didn't stop and ran in the house grabbed a bottle and started slamming it and claiming they were sober while driving. Or the guy that got into an accident, said he grabbed the bottle after and drank and avoided the proper charges. That's is where this law is coming from, they are trying to eliminate these type of abuses. But I think there are other ways to get at the issue but being a Liberal government the more privileges they take from the population the happier they are.
So you get home from work or a day fishing with your catch, pound a few beers and relax or start filleting your fish and don’t answer the door for 2 hours. Or peek out the window before you open it lol. I highly doubt cops are going to break into your house over the attempt to breathalize you. Not that this is practical, But what if you just don’t answer your door...
banger17
Well-Known Member
Pretty spot on Video clip, in my opinion.
Guess any time I intend to have a few beers when returning home from a weeks work, I won’t be answering the door until the 2 hour timer goes off...
Similar threads
