Why Apple's DUI Checkpoint App Ban Is Stupid 228
hookskat writes "Reason.tv Editor in Chief Nick Gillespie reacts to Apple's decision to ban DUI Checkpoint Apps from the App Store, writing: 'Let me add something even more damning of this latest development in corporate cave-ins to legally protected free speech and I'm gonna bold it for emphasis: Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads! Somehow, I'm thinking that Steve Jobs circa 1984...would have told U.S. senators sending threatening letters about computer-based info sharing to take a hike. Or at least to spend time on, I don't know, creating a freaking budget for the country rather than worrying about regulating something that helps reduce impaired driving.' Last month, after RIM caved on the same question, Reason.tv released this video on the subject of banning DUI checkpoint apps."
preachin to the choir (Score:2)
The end.
Re:preachin to the choir (Score:5, Informative)
Except the story is based on a false premise. Apple doesn't ban apps that use the police department's data.
Re:preachin to the choir (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why this article is stupid...
Because apple didn't ban apps that show DUI checkpoints... they banned ones that weren't sourced from official sources like the police department.
Re: (Score:3)
Which strikes me as a relatively reasonable compromise. I'm not sure how much better people were expecting. The iOS is a walled garden, and if you want to use the devices without jailbreaking them, then you're going to have to live with Apple's rules.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:preachin to the choir (Score:5, Insightful)
The impact of those lines changes quite a bit when you realize they were uttered by a distraught father concerned about the well-being of his only son....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes people have to be told the same thing in hundreds of different ways until one way makes sense and finally drives the point home. It's kind of like the general care people in the US have about freedoms. They don't care about losing freedoms they don't use that much. Right to own a gun? Most don't care. Speech? Most don't have anything to say. Freedom to assemble? Yeah, same thing. Freedom of travel? Well, that's a sticking point for most of us, but we don't see it as infringing on that ri
Re:preachin to the choir (Score:5, Insightful)
And there you have it.
There was a time when "the customer" was "always right" and companies worked hard to give them what they wanted.
Now, the company tells the consumer what he wants, and then rents it to him. But only if he follows the company's rules.
I guess the question finally comes down to "do you really want to live inside a walled garden". For a lot of people, the answer is a resounding "Yes!"
The most ironic part of it all is that the people who choose to live inside the walled garden also somehow believe it makes them superior. But like the newborn that is kept in a sterile environment, away from any germ or environmental stress will lose all resistance and become weak, the people who are happily consuming canned content in the walled garden become weak in other ways.
Apple computers used to be a top choice for creative, adventurous people. Apple computers were used to make things. Now, they're increasingly used to consume things.
You have to decide.
Re:preachin to the choir (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple computers used to be a top choice for creative, adventurous people.
Apple computers used to be marketed as a top choice for creative, adventurous people. There is a big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
it is also a stupid article (not that I read it or anything) because from Apple's perspective, its not a bad idea to make friends with US Senators. Apple would have been ill advised to ignore the request. Why? Because a pissed off US Senator is far more of a pain in the ass than a very specialized phone app developer. How many developers and apps are we talking about? Because those 4 Senators know 96 other Senators personally, not to mention a lot of other VIPs. How many Senators do the developers and thos
Decrease the number on the road? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does it really decrease the total number on the road, or only the total number counted by police checkpoints?
Also that old line on causation. You know the one.
Re: (Score:3)
Not that I condone drink driving, but if you applied that kind of punishment to every example of ignorant and dangerous driving out there you wouldn't have many people left on the roads. Perhaps the punishment isn't harsh enough, but the 'life/death sentence for everything' is obviously flawed. I know someone who got caught (UK) drink driving, he got a two year ban and a fine. If he gets caught again he's got a prison sentence, 10 year ban, etc. etc. Enough to really destroy the life of any normal perso
PR-Wise, (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PR-Wise, (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, iMacs and iPods were made cool by nerds *facepalm*
If nerds had that much sway, the majority of people would be running Linux on the desktop, with all popular and important commercial apps and games available for it. And there would be no copyright or patents. And they'd be too busy with their girlfriends to use computers much of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
If it weren't for the Apple I and II and classic Macs, there would be no Apple today. It was the classic era where nerds gave Apple enough success to get to where they are today.
Re: (Score:2)
If it weren't for the Apple I and II and classic Macs, there would be no Apple today. It was the classic era where nerds gave Apple enough success to get to where they are today.
If things were different they wouldn't be the same. The same could be said for many, many other companies.
Re: (Score:3)
If nerds had that much sway, the majority of people would be running Linux on the desktop, with all popular and important commercial apps and games available for it.
No offense, but Linux nerds don't want the popular commercial apps and games. They want the Gimp and nethack. Although free software desktops are increasingly being used by people who don't give two shits about free software, it has historically been designed for and by people who do. And those of us who give a shit about free software are by and large happy with what we've got (although we can make it better).
Not that I disagree with you on the main point. Nerds didn't make Apple successful. If it had
Re: (Score:3)
Geeks have essentially zero influence on Apple's sales. Smaller than any arbitrarily-chosen epsilon. If you actually believe what you posted, I feel sad for you.
Re: (Score:3)
You've just identified the origin of Apple-haters: geeks who think they should be on a pedestal, but aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
You're projecting.
We're "geeks". We don't need to be on a pedestal. However, we will judge companies and people on their merits and will freely offer opinions of same regardless of how "socially inappropriate" it might seem.
Re: (Score:2)
Less space than a nomad. No wireless. Lame.
Ya.... I don't think Apple is too concerned about /.ers affecting sales.
Re: (Score:3)
Except they addressed those concerns. Their product wasn't successful until they did.
You think you're witty but that's really a self-nuke.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait, they were. Apple was storming the MP3 player market by the third generation of iPods, at which point they went up to 30GB.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse PR than being branded a friend to drunk drivers? I think not.
I can get RIm apps OTA (Score:2)
Reduces drunk drivers on the road? (Score:2)
Published checkpoint data is exempt from this ban (Score:2)
The rules specifically apply to checkpoint information that is NOT published by law enforcement agencies.
Section 22.8 of the updated App Store Review Guidelines reads:
"Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected."
Some law enforcement agencies publish where DUI checkpoints will be located ahead of time, and these notices have been exempted from the ban.
Source [macrumors.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Out of curiosity, at what point does the existence of the checkpoint itself count as "published by law enforcement?" At the very least it would be at the point where the first ticket was written, since the ticket is a public record and it contains the address closest to the infraction. Right?
What bothers me about this is that Apple has, essentially, banned an app for publishing a certain class of facts
Massively, massively troll article! (Score:5, Informative)
What the hell passes for "facts" these days?
Apple has *not* banned DUI checkpoint apps. Not even one. All of the checkpoint apps that were up on the store before today are still there.
What they have done is changed their ToS to be explicit about the listing of non-public information, which DUI checkpoints are *not included in* since the police advertise them.
How the fuck this ever (and in the previous article) got twisted into "Apple bans DUI checkpoint apps" is beyond me, other than some serious axe-grinding Apple haters are just making stuff up and posting it as news. Maybe the correction was sent to them via text message from Android, but it somehow got sent to a guy who cleans windows in Atlanta instead.
Re:Massively, massively troll article! (Score:5, Informative)
How the fuck this ever (and in the previous article) got twisted into "Apple bans DUI checkpoint apps" is beyond me, other than some serious axe-grinding Apple haters are just making stuff up and posting it as news.
I used to think that but now I think Slashdot has noticed that stories about Android and iPhone generate a lot of ad-serving content. People still fall for this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
It remains to be seen - and crucially, the app on the store that works precisely that way *is still available on the store*. So I would say it *is* public information... and so, it would seem, does Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So your point is (Score:2)
that Nick Gillespie doesn't actually read what he quotes?
I disagree (Score:2)
About the 1984 Steve Jobs part, As we know now that giant screen in the famous Macintosh commercial was not a prop, but rather a real deal space time communicator, where 1984 Steve received orders from 2016 Steve. Also the board removed Steve from his duties shortly thereafter for no other reason than "that communicator thing is really creeping me out"
Hypothetical (Score:3, Insightful)
That app would save me money and jail time, save my district a bunch of paperwork, and make the roads safer.
The other side of the argument is that people will know where the checkpoint is and try to drive around it. If anything, this being open should encourage better checkpoint planning. There are plenty of high traffic bottlenecks in every state, so that's a poor excuse. Worst case scenario is the appropriate side roads would need increased patrols.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And the app will still be on the store. Apple has not banned DUI checkpoint apps, even hypothetical ones.
Re:Hypothetical (Score:5, Insightful)
How does giving you the tools to drive impaired and avoid being caught doing so make the roads safer? Seriously, what kind of doublethink does it take to think that "I'm too buzzed to risk a field sobriety test, but I'm still a safe driver"* is a reasonable statement?.*
No. The worst case scenario is an impaired driver that might have been caught, isn't - and plows into something or someone.
*No, blowing 0.001% isn't all it takes.
** No, "I think I'm a safe driver, therefore I am" isn't a reasonable answer. Study after study has shown people don't realize how impaired they are. Nor is "I've played Russian Roulette with other people's lives many times and not had a problem".
Re: (Score:2)
A better standard would be a really good field sobriety test based on reaction times administered in front of a dash camera.
Re: (Score:2)
A better standard would be a really good field sobriety test based on reaction times administered in front of a dash camera.
That is too slow for testing a large number of vehicles at a checkpoint. By making a slow procedure, you can only test a smaller number of cars travelling past that point - meaning you may end up letting someone who would blow 0.90 sail right past without being tested at all. All for the sake of letting some people get lucky for being just under the limit.
I am not quite sure why it is such a problem anyway. How is a 0.01 lower BAC any different to being 0.01 seconds faster in a reaction time test. At some p
Re:Hypothetical (Score:5, Insightful)
I like how you fail to quote the part of his statement where GP chooses to not drive home, then fail to respond to any point that he makes. Good job!
I like how you fail to recognize the other outcome from checking with the checkpoint app: "no checkpoints reported, I'm just a little buzzed, so I hop in the car and drive home." He didn't say that explicitly, but that's the other side of the coin of what he did say. Or did you think that he was checking the app just for fun and had already decided not to drive home? No, that's not what he said.
What happens without that app? If he thought "maybe I'm too drunk to drive and I might get caught at a checkpoint" every time he was drunk and needed to "drive home", instead of being able to see if there was a high probability of getting caught, and took a cab instead, THAT would make the roads safer.
And then, what if the only way home wasn't the road where the checkpoint was? Do you think he might have decided to take the backroads to avoid the cops, thus making for a longer drive over less well maintained roads and increasing the danger to himself and others?
Good job, yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody's single-point-of-data scenario matters to the argument at hand. Not yours either. What matters is the actual change in the number of impaired drivers on the road. That's it.
From there you might possibly get a better idea of what types of scenarios occur more often than others.
Maybe the simple of act of checking the app is enough that more people tend to wait longer and order water. Maybe the act of passing the app around in the bar initially trends toward more sober drivers as pe
Re: (Score:3)
His point was that if you feel impaired enough not to want to risk a field sobriety test, you are (almost by definition) not sober enough to drive. Whether or not there's a checkpoint in your way should have no impact on your choosing not to drive, whereas the GGP's post implied that the only reason he'd take a cab would be to avoid the checkpoint and that otherwise he would have, and has in the past, just driven home.
Re: (Score:3)
In this hypothetical scenario, he only chose not to drive home because he could have been caught. Meaning he acknowledged he's likely over the legal limit for driving while intoxicated no matter how sober he thinks he is at the moment. Remember that many people outright drunk think they are safe to drive home, when in fact they are not.
Had there not been a hypothetical checkpoint, he would have driven home on his own.
The correct choice every time should have been to take a cab home, if he even thinks for a
Re:Hypothetical (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly the currently the US drinking laws are too restrictive. First of all, devices that make far too many assumptions about the person being tested's physical attributes and metabolism are entirely too trusted (sure maybe average is considered when designing these devices, but the variance is so large it sacrifices all its precision for determining drunkenness).
Firstly, DUI really is dangerous. The problem is that it's your judgement that gets screwed up first when you consume alcohol. Don't be a hazard to yourself and everyone else by drinking and driving. Get a sober friend to drive you instead, or take a cab or public transport or even walk.
Secondly, BAC is a really good measure of how drunk you are because it takes into account your body mass (and I'm betting you get equilibrium between the blood level of alcohol and the brain level pretty rapidly; no reason to think there's a gigantic concentration difference there) and the level of alcohol in your breath is actually quite closely tracking the level in your blood; your lungs have a large surface area and alcohol is quite volatile. Hence its reasonable for the police to use it to work out whether you're unfit to drive. (You might or might not have problems with the police, but it's still a good measure that can be used well enough in the field by officers without excessive training.)
The real way to deal with these things? As I said, not driving while drunk. It's that simple. Every time you think that the world ought to be cutting you some special slack because of your circumstances, you're (almost certainly) just being a selfish dangerous jerk. Your right to drive is not as important as everyone else's to not be hit by your car.
Another quick side note, the only other time I've been stopped, the officer drew a gun on me, for going 9MPH over the speed limit on a highway where the speed dropped down 10 MPH a half mile before (cruise control).
So you weren't paying attention when you were driving? Idiot. Jerk. I hope that if you kill anyone through your thoughtlessness and lack of attention, it's just yourself and that nobody else gets hurt.
Re:Hypothetical (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you check your app and you find that there isn't a checkpoint on the only highway between the bar and your house, does that mean you would happily drive home drunk and possibly cause an accident? That doesn't sound like it made the roads safer at all!
However, if you did not know if there was a checkpoint set up, then you may just decide not to risk it and take a cab anyway. Thus by not having the facts the road becomes safer.
Re: (Score:2)
1: This is a hypothetical situation
2: The OP's point still stands
3: If you compare the case of the app showing a "safe" drive home, and the case of not having an app at all, I assume the outcome would usually be the same and that he would drive home intoxicated. (Maybe some people would not drive home due to the uncertainty, but I don't think that would be the majority)
Re: (Score:2)
The OP's point still stands
No, it does not. The hypothetical situation only works if there is only one route to get home. The type of person who would drive home only when an app said the cops were not doing checks would not hesitate to choose an alternate route. How many times do you only have one road to get home?
And what could be worse for a drunk driver than to choose an unfamiliar route that might consist of badly lit back streets. This is an accident waiting to happen.
If you compare the case of the app showing a "safe" drive home, and the case of not having an app at all, I assume the outcome would usually be the same and that he would drive home intoxicated.
Except he would not get home if he got stopped at a checkpoi
Re:Hypothetical (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. I want an app that tells me where you're driving so I can avoid you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm at a bar, I've had a couple drinks, but nothing excessive. It's not late and I can safely get myself home as I have done in the past, but there's a plausible chance I'd get busted for a DUI if I got stopped on the way home. I'm a little buzzed and 0.001% over is all it takes. I check my new iPhone app and lo and behold, there's a checkpoint on the only highway between the bar and my house. I don't want to spend the night in jail, so I take a cab instead.
That app would save me money and jail time, save my district a bunch of paperwork, and make the roads safer.
The other side of the argument is that people will know where the checkpoint is and try to drive around it. If anything, this being open should encourage better checkpoint planning. There are plenty of high traffic bottlenecks in every state, so that's a poor excuse. Worst case scenario is the appropriate side roads would need increased patrols.
Plan to stop drinking X hours before leaving, or wait X hours longer, then leave. Is it that fucking hard? If you're not capable of thinking ahead that much, and you don't have a sober friend along to drive you - wait, clearly you wouldn't due to aforementioned lack of planning - stay off my god damned roads, or I hope you get caught. Eat a plate of chicken wings and order some soda you creeps, there is no excuse.
Is this an episode of the Simpsons or some shit? "Hey, you look like you're trying to sober
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fucking shit people. Half a dozen replies to this guy and more than half of you are READING COMPREHENSION FAIL. Read the post again. Here, I'll bold the part you missed:
I think you owe screwzloos an apology.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a little buzzed and 0.001% over is all it takes.
And they call Oz a police state. Here it's 0.05% unless you're a P2 probationary driver (Green P plates) where it's 0.02% or 0.00% for P1 probationary (Red P plates) and Learner (L plates) drivers.
P1 probationary is only for the first six months. It's good as it lets other motorists know you are a really green driver. Of course this does not stop wankers from cutting you off.
Re: (Score:2)
He means 0.001% over the legal limit (so in your case at 0.051%)
i'm pretty sure the limit in the U.S. is higher than ours (depending on state)
That's not how the free market works, Nick (Score:2)
Why does a libertarian like Nick Gillespie want to force a market participant like Apple to carry certain types of apps in its App Store? Last time I checked, the First Amendment was about the government abridging your right to free speech.
If people want DUI checkpoint apps, they can switch to Android or some other phone platform that allows them to run the types of app they want. The market will reward or punish Apple accordingly. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's for FREEEDOMMMM!!! In the name of freedom, we must force every store to carry everything, whether they want to or not, otherwise they are taking away our freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. I should be able to march into any Victoria's Secret and purchase a set of snow tires for my refrigerator!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true; and we can and do vote with our wallets. Griping is just fair warning.
just make it a website (Score:2)
Is it possible to.. (Score:2)
Say, somebody DUI comes towards you... Can you shoot such person in self defence?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where you are, I'd say.
Re: (Score:2)
Say, somebody DUI comes towards you... Can you shoot such person in self defence?
Depends on where you are, I'd say.
*Bump*Bump*Screech*
Never mind then.
To Nick Gillespie (Score:2)
R.Y.O.F.A.
Anti-American, anti-democratic (Score:2)
Saying it's "stupid" somehow makes your argument look lame, kind of like calling that someone you don't like a "big poopy head".
Flat out, it's police-state anti-democracy in action. Apple caved to political pressure placed upon it by sleazy politicians pandering to police organizations/unions.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just in case someone really believes it's not a fact...
I work for "the media" and receive emails from my city's police department .. oh, every couple weeks .. telling me exactly when they're going to have a checkpoint and in what neighborhood. Really. These are emails from the police, days in advance. I don't know if this includes every DUI checkpoint, though it might.
My understanding (which could be wrong) is that if they didn't do this, the checkpoints would would be illegal (or "more" illegal in some
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Blanket statements against blanket statements yields politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but both sides are making claims, and both sides are disavowing any responsibility to meet any burden of proof. Sounds like it's devolving into a "no, you go first" argument I have to occasionally send my 5-year-olds to time-out to break up.
Good work, Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but both sides are making claims
It looks like he just asked for a citation.
and both sides are disavowing any responsibility to meet any burden of proof.
Neither of them said anything about doing that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean like this one?? It's not in an app, but this is where the apps get some of their info from...
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/DUI-Enforcement.aspx
Also, why are they banned? You can find them by driving around and seeing them. Why is the sharing of them, even if they are not "advertised"??
Re: (Score:2)
And anyway, I don't see how these apps would help people avoid DUI checkpoints. If you're sufficiently wasted, then you probably don't have the judgment skills to use the app and avoid the checkpoint in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
That is the point. The Police know the people who check this app are going to be the kind of people who decide against DUI. The people who do go drinking and driving don't exactly have a a lot of foresight. If you plan your life enough to check a DUI checkpoint app, you are going to stay home, get a ride or take a taxi.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're sufficiently wasted, then you probably don't have the judgment skills to use the app and avoid the checkpoint in the first place.
I just realized we should all be worried not merely about drunks on the roads, but drunks on the road trying to use their iPhones with this app (or any other app... text messaging, I'm looking at you...) while driving. Or even sober drivers, it they're trying to app while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And anyway, I don't see how these apps would help people avoid DUI checkpoints. If you're sufficiently wasted, then you probably don't have the judgment skills to use the app and avoid the checkpoint in the first place.
There is a huge gap between the legal alcohol limit where driving is impaired due to lower reaction times and being so blotto that you can't use an iPhone app. If you can't use an app then you probably can't get the key in your ignition either.
I have known people who take back streets to avoid likely checkpoint areas (making it a more complicated route to navigate) because they knew that they would be over the limit. Being drunk doesn't instantly make you stupid, it starts by making other people look more a
Re: (Score:2)
Huge gap? Not really. You don't know what the limits really are
Go get a good testing device. Get drunk to 0.11%. You'll have trouble finding your keys. It's scary, and why most states moved the limit down to 0.08%.
Re: (Score:3)
No, states moved the limit down to 0.08% because the feds made them do it (on pain of losing highway funding). The feds did it because the neo-prohibitionist lobby groups like MADD waved the bloody shirt until they did.
A BAC of 0.08% is low enough to make the classic "2 beers" illegal in many people. The idea isn't to prevent drinking and driving; it's to
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not Published (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not Published (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. The police are evidently only upset about the illegal checkpoints that the app publishes.
That's actually not sarcasm. It seems to be the truth.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> From the summary on slashdot: "I'm gonna bold it for emphasis: Some police departments actually supply the data used in such apps because they reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads!"
> From the article: "Apps which contain DUI checkpoints that are not published by law enforcement agencies, or encourage and enable drunk driving, will be rejected...."
Yeah, but just because of, like, that, and the fact that it was already discussed to death in today's earlier thread about the same topic - well
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of twitter and facebook posts about checkpoint locations. I propose that they ban those as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is something I can SEE WHILE WALKING DOWN THE STREET than it is public data, by definition. You can't argue the opposite without descending into hopeless contradictions.
The End.
Indeed.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If it is something I can SEE WHILE WALKING DOWN THE STREET than it is public data, by definition.
Interesting definition.
You walk down the street, see someone's credit card laying on the sidewalk where they dropped it. Obviously, it is now public information. There can be nothing wrong with selling that information to the Russian mob, right?
You go to the ATM machine and the person ahead of you forgot to pull the receipt. You take it and get their account number. You wait a few minutes before looking so you can look at it while you "walk down the street". It is obviously public information now. Oh, yo
Re: (Score:3)
Your examples are a bit twisted. Reading your appointments in a public street wouldn't make them public simply because they were private information obviously intended to be kept secret. The same with the credit card example.
It's the same difference between taking a photo of someone on the street without their permission (legal), or taking one of them in their home (illegal), even if the home is clearly visible from the street where you're standing with your super-zoom lens.
It'd be hard to argue that a poli
Re: (Score:2)
Your examples are a bit twisted. Reading your appointments in a public street wouldn't make them public simply because they were private information obviously intended to be kept secret.
I'm sorry, but you didn't read the definition of "public data", now did you? "Anything I can see while walking down the street" -- by definition. How are you not seeing the data about your appointment with the dominatrix? How can that not fit the definition? Unless the definition is wrong, which was my point.
As for the intent to keep it secret, I guess then that the police intending to keep a checkpoint location secret is sufficient to breach the definition of "public data" and it, too, would be secret.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but you didn't read the definition of "public data", now did you? "Anything I can see while walking down the street" -- by definition.
No, it's not.
As I said, even you you can clearly look inside my house from the street, it's not "public data".
You can't take pictures, and you can't complain about my hairy ass if I decide to walk around naked in my apartment with open windows (there was a court case about this, but I don't have the link at hand).
Re: (Score:2)
Deadly weapon but not considered armament, thus in no way, shape, or form does it have relation to the right to keep and bear arms.
Re: (Score:2)
A motor vehicle with a sober driver is also a deadly weapon. The second amendment is about ownership. You have the right to bear arms. Not to get drunk and stagger around town pointing a loaded weapon at everyone you meet.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably by reminding that there are checkpoints. A dozen tiny red dots on the map drives the point home pretty strongly.
Re: (Score:3)
I would, too.
Although I still say the best thing to do to reduce drunken driving would be to make sure the busses continue to run for at least an hour after the bars close....
I think the real problem, in many areas, is that advocates are taking their eyes off of the prize, and instead going for the goal of using drunk driving as a cudgel to curtail drinking at all.
Re: (Score:2)