The U.S. Supreme Court made it a bit tougher to get drunken drivers off the road.
On Thursday, the court ruled police must obtain a search warrant before forcing drivers suspected of being over the legal limit to take a blood test.
However, police will still be able to require a Breathalyzer test without a warrant.
The court said that blood tests violate the Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure, but that breath tests were less intrusive.
Drivers can still have their licenses revoked for refusing any alcohol tests. But there can be no additional penalties for refusing a blood test without a warrant.
Drunken driving is an issue many are passionate about. Supporters of tough enforcement argue anything that keeps those who have had too much off the road is a vital public safety matter.
Some critics, though, say the pendulum has swung too far and in addition to constitutional concerns, it's more about money than safety. They argue that stiff fines for drunken driving arrests have become a profit center for law enforcement.
We want to know what you think. Was the court right to require a warrant for blood alcohol tests? Or should public safety trump privacy concerns?
Send your response (50 words maximum) to [email protected] by Wednesday, June 29. You can also mail your response to the Texarkana Gazette Friday Poll, at P.O. Box 621, Texarkana, TX 75504. Be sure to include your name, address and phone number. We will print as many responses as we can in next Friday's paper.
Last Week: Assault weapons
This week's poll was about calls for a ban on AR-15s and other so-called "assault rifles." Should semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines be more strictly regulated or banned? Or should the government leave well enough alone?
My opinion there is no way to govern who can and who cannot buy an AR-15 semi automatic rifle with a 30 round clip. As far as the AR-15 being considered an assault rifle or not, the Orlando shooter was able to shoot 100 people in a short time period. I believe that is an assault! The shooter assaulted 100 people.-B.J., Texarkana, Texas
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting. It is for prevention or removal of a despotic government. The styling and magazine capacity should be equal or near to those of the despot's firearms. Thank you,-J.G.J., Atlanta, Texas
The Republicans favorite President Ronald Reagan is quoted on February 6, 1989 saying "I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense, but I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."-D.J., Texarkana, Texas
I oppose infringing on gun rights. Reasons: 1. Unconstitutional 2. It doesn't work. Proof: 1994 "assault weapons" ban had little or no effect on violent crime rates. They started a steady decline in 1993 which did not vary when implemented or when it expired. 3. AR-15 has been used to successfully defend homes.-M.P.B., Texarkana, Texas
I oppose. New York Times says only 23 percent of bullets fired in a police fire fight hit the target. It takes 3-5 hits to stop a criminal. So 12-15 shots minimum to stop him. Criminals hunt in packs. Two criminals maximum with standard capacity magazine for an AR-15 (30 rounds). What if 3 attackers?-R.B., Timpson, Texas
There are enough assault weapons, ie. shotguns, rifles, and hand guns of every caliber available for those who want them. Civilians do not need military type weapons. The 22 weapon manufacturers and NRA are in each other pockets, they both profit from sales. We should concentrate on refining background checking.-J.B., Texarkana, Ark.
Home invasion scenario: You are at your friend's house when two armed, masked men at the back door and two at the front door are entering the house. You and your friend run to a room where he keeps some weapons. Your choices are: a revolver (which holds 5 rounds), a bat, pepper spray, or an AR-15 that holds 30 rounds. Which one do you want him to pick up to save your life? Remember, police have an accuracy rate of around 25-50% in shootouts and it often takes 2 hits just to stop an attacker. Do the math.-G.R., Texarkana, Texas
I will agree to ban so called "assault rifles" when the government bans cars. They are alike, you know. The terrorist uses the "assault rifle," to commit less than one percent of mass murders, and the drunk uses the car to commit 95 percent of them. Brilliant idea, don't you think?-F.M., Fouke, Ark.
In 2008 Justice Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm to use for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The assault rifle would not be the gun of choice to use in the rare case of a home intruder. Just like machine guns and automatic rifles, the assault rifles should be banned.-M.M., Texarkana, Texas