Many people are outraged by the New Mexico proposal to require all cars to be equipped with breathalyzer interlocks, so that a car owner would have to be breath-tested before he can use his car. The bill has passed the New Mexico House of Representatives, but the ACLU and others are strongly objecting to it.
How different is this, though, from some of the proposed “smart gun” requirements under which new guns would have to be equipped with fingerprint (or grip) recognition interlocks, so that the user would have to be checked to make sure his fingerprint matches the authorized print?
It’s true that the breathalyzer would aim to check a person’s sobriety, while the fingerprint recognition system would just check his identity. Still, both are checks of the person’s body aimed at screening out illegal users. Consider:
| Breathalyzer interlock for cars | Fingerprint recognition interlock for guns | |
| Intended to prevent use of car by dangerous (drunk) users. | Intended to prevent use of gun by dangerous (child, thief) users. | |
| When properly functioning, screens out only dangerous users (assuming all users with blood alcohol above the legal limit are at least fairly dangerous). | When properly functioning, also screens out safe users, for instance when the gun owner shouts to a trusted visitor “Quick, get the gun and protect yourself.” | |
| Will probably sometimes malfunction, screening out legal users. | Will probably sometimes malfunction, screening out legal users. | |
| When it malfunctions, the result will usually be just a hassle, but will sometimes prevent life-saving uses (for instance, when you need to drive someone to the hospital). | When it malfunctions, the result will sometimes be just a hassle (for instance, at the shooting range), but will sometimes prevent life-saving uses (for instance, when you need to defend yourself or your family against a criminal). | |
| “We are concerned that if you’ve got to sort of go through a mini search every time you drive your car,” says Reber Boult [of the local chapter of the ACLU]. “That’s very invasive.” | Would require you to sort of go through a mini search every time you want to use your gun, which is equally invasive (or equally non-invasive, if you aren’t troubled by either). | |
| A bit under 44,000 people a year are killed in motor vehicle accidents (2001 data). | A bit under 30,000 people a year are killed using guns; this breaks down into 17,000 gun suicides, 11,000 gun homicides, and 1000 accidents (2001 data). Probably 1000 to 3000 of these are legal killings by the police or by people acting in self-defense. | |
| Apparently about 13,000 people a year are killed in motor vehicle accidents that involve drinking. | Probably several thousand people a year are killed by guns that are used by unauthorized users (some involving children and most involving thieves), though no-one knows the exact amount. | |
| There is no constitutional right to drive a car. | There is a hot debate about whether the Second Amendment secures a constitutional right to have a gun; 44 of the 50 state constitutions secure a right to have a gun, and most of those quite explicitly secure individual rights. | |
| Cars don’t just have one purpose — killing people — but are overwhelmingly used lawfully. | Guns don’t just have one purpose — killing people — but are overwhelmingly used lawfully (for target-shooting, for hunting, for self-defense against animals, and for self-defense against people, which almost never involves an actual killing). |
Now perhaps this shows that both breathalyzer interlocks and gun fingerprint interlocks are good ideas. But it does suggest that people who oppose one should probably oppose the other as well. Incidentally, I’d be delighted to see and post any quotes from ACLU chapters that have similarly complained about gun fingerprint interlocks.
Thanks to Robert Racansky for inspiring me to think about this today, though his approach is somewhat different from mine.
Comments are closed.