Court considers whether intoxicated may possess gun in own home
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Unfortunately, there is more than one issue here. First, Her Honor, Ms. O'Conner is officially a Republican, but really more of a Democrat than a Republican. She simply knows how to play the game better than most. When her "ideological" position was examined by a couple of ivy-tower types, she scored somewhere far to the right; but that was an analysis by a couple of left-wingers, so it really doesn't indicate much other than the left wing doesn't like her. A couple of other facts may be more revealing: 1) she was born in D.C. - the heart of the swamp; 2) she served as Lt. Gov. to Bob Taft, who was perhaps the ultimate RHINO of his era; 3) after realizing her future in Rep. party politics was extremely limited, she ran for Sup. Court largely on the platform of being a female; 4) she doesn't see anything wrong with legislalting from the bench nor marching over to the state house and telling them how it should be done. The second issue is booze. In Ohio, we have a serious problem with drunks! If you get caught drinking and driving, it all depends on where you're caught and who catches you. In some places, if you're the right "type", the cops will drive you home and tuck you in. In other places, they'll throw the book at you. There are also lots of organizations that exist on paper as being devoted to some worthy cause, when in reality they're just drinking clubs masquarading under a publically acceptable name. For example, always heard about a German "Schutzenverein" that had an annual fund raising event. Finally tried to go one year, but didn't make it further than the parking lot because a couple of drunks stopped me and another threw up all over my shoes. More recently, I tried to join a "conservation" club only to learn that it was really just a club for drunks. Unfortunately, they hold turkey shoots, trap shoots and have a very nice shooting range, if you don't mind stepping over all the empty beer bottles. Not only do they sell beer, they encourage you to bring your own and share with others. Some of the board members regularly got so drunk or arrived so drunk at board meetings that minor fights would break out! A small number of board members regularly talk about the liability problem, but when the other members of club get wind of any such discussion, the "offending" board members are usually voted out at the next election. My tolerance for drunks just wasn't a high as I thought it was and I had to tell them thanks but no thanks. Several years ago, I tried to join another gun club that allowed class III shooting, but couldn't bring myself to accept guys drinking two or three bottles and then throwing the bottles in the air to use as targets! So... I don't know about other states, but there is something of a problem here.
A DWI is not always a felony.
Old Dog
Member
The thing that concerns me the most about this case is the fact that it made it all the way to the State Supreme Court, when he never should have been charged nor sentenced in the first place.
MedWheeler
Member
Col. Harrumph writes:
It's not their job, either. Until something becomes an issue, the legislature should have no business "imagining" up anything.
Florida, for example, has no statute prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages while in possession of a firearm, or even while using one. Florida does prohibit the use of a firearm while "under the influence" of alcohol, using the standards used also for DUI laws. Even then, there is an exception for cases of lawful self-defense usages. But possession? Legal, even if falling-down drunk. It just hasn't been seen as an issue, and criminal acts committed while drunk are addressed by other statutes.
It's not their job, either. Until something becomes an issue, the legislature should have no business "imagining" up anything.
Florida, for example, has no statute prohibiting the consumption of alcoholic beverages while in possession of a firearm, or even while using one. Florida does prohibit the use of a firearm while "under the influence" of alcohol, using the standards used also for DUI laws. Even then, there is an exception for cases of lawful self-defense usages. But possession? Legal, even if falling-down drunk. It just hasn't been seen as an issue, and criminal acts committed while drunk are addressed by other statutes.
Last edited:
MedWheeler
Member
jar writes:
I hardly think that's necessary, when "common sense" is used. Perhaps your definition of "common sense" differs from mine, though. I know how to "have a drink."
If I decide to be concerned about a gun being left outside the safe, I just won't let it drink.
I hardly think that's necessary, when "common sense" is used. Perhaps your definition of "common sense" differs from mine, though. I know how to "have a drink."
If I decide to be concerned about a gun being left outside the safe, I just won't let it drink.
AZAndy
Member
Hoo-whee, sure am glad I've been sober a while. And that I don't live in Ohio any more. 
I don’t think folks are suggesting you can’t have a gun in the house, if you are drunk. Leave them in your locked security container, though. If you are drunk, you shouldn’t be handling guns. Including unloading one and carrying it into a room with cops in it. Duh.
If you have self induced diminished mental capabilities or judgement, keep you hands off your guns.
If you have self induced diminished mental capabilities or judgement, keep you hands off your guns.
FROGO207
Member
All this don't touch it if you are drunk stuff sounds good in theory. Now if I was to drink a few and go to bed only to have my back door kicked in at 0 dark thirty what am I supposed to do? Yell down stairs that I'm drunk and you have to come back tomorrow night??? So glad I havent had a drink in decades.
Speedo66
Member
Needless to say, Bloomberg got a bad rap for that, but the reality was the city was, and still is, facing enormous welfare bills, and most of the recipients were soda swilling fast food eaters. Obese, with a multitude of health problems, including rampant diabetes and heart problems.
Bloomberg’s attempt to try and curb the runaway Medicaid budget and make the city healthier in general by limiting its sugar intake got lampooned by the press, but at least his thoughts were in the right place.
syntaxerrorsix
Member
I'll just keep mine in it's holster thank you. Until such time as liberty is deprived from someone else a crime hasn't occurred.
BSA1
member
Let me see if I got this right;
A person who is of LEGAL age to consume alcoholic beverages, who is of LEGAL age to own a firearm, who meets all of the LEGAL requirements to possess a firearm, who is residing in their LEGAL residence and is consuming a product that is LEGALLY approved by the Government is now conducting a ILLEGAL activity.
Yep makes sense to me. It is needed to save the children.
A person who is of LEGAL age to consume alcoholic beverages, who is of LEGAL age to own a firearm, who meets all of the LEGAL requirements to possess a firearm, who is residing in their LEGAL residence and is consuming a product that is LEGALLY approved by the Government is now conducting a ILLEGAL activity.
Yep makes sense to me. It is needed to save the children.
Old Dog
Member
The road to hell is pave with good intentions.
As we've had demonstrated throughout the years, it's absolutely pointless to attempt to legislate common sense.
The nanny state mentality is going to kill our country quicker than empty carbs, saturated fats and high-fructose corn syrup.
Alec
Member
I’m pretty sure we tried that and decided it was a bad idea. In fact, it left an interesting scar on the constitution, too.
MedWheeler
Member
Speedo66 writes:
So, maybe a re-evaluation of who was doing what with these "benefits" was in order. Those recipients should have been restricted in what could have been done with their, uh, "entitlements", kind of like making able-bodied recipients work, or attempt to work. Instead, everyone was targeted because of the actions of an irresponsible minority (you know, kind of like New York's gun laws.)
So, maybe a re-evaluation of who was doing what with these "benefits" was in order. Those recipients should have been restricted in what could have been done with their, uh, "entitlements", kind of like making able-bodied recipients work, or attempt to work. Instead, everyone was targeted because of the actions of an irresponsible minority (you know, kind of like New York's gun laws.)
Speedo66
Member
I don’t think food stamps were ever thought to be for high fat and big sugar fast food, but get some industry lobbyists to spread some cash among some sleazy politicians and guess what?
Work for welfare money, you kidding? They have rights you know! lol
Most neighborhoods in the Bronx where I worked it was easy enough to trade food stamps for drugs or alcohol. And based on the prevalence, they seemed to not need permits for guns.
huntsman
Member
It’s only illegal if cops are there, I believe it’s one of those laws they use when they got nothing else or they want to pile on charges
Pat Riot
Contributing Member
It seems to me that the most dangerous thing in America is activist judges who have lost their ideals and have forgotten their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
No , his thoughts were not in the right place. Actually , they were in the left place. The problem is the abuse of unrestricted entitlements. Regulating everybody , whether they are part of the problem or not , fixes nothing.
This should be glaringly apparent to all of us - have we not seen that restricting gun rights for law abiding citizens does nothing to deter criminal use of guns?
Bloomberg was critical of the armed parishioners in the most recent Texas church shooting , despite the fact that the loss of life was minimized by an armed good guy. Did not fit his agenda. He wants to dictate. He is unable to see or admit to the unforeseen consequences of bad legislation - he just reacts by piling on more legislation.
If he really wanted to have a positive effect on the health of welfare recipients he would have to determine what is wrong with the program at it's core. That would take guts. That would constitute having his thoughts in the right place.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,199
A violent home invader doesn't care if he's intoxicated or not, he still has the right to bear arms for self-defense.
Put a gun or car keys in the room with a drunk for long enough, eventually stupid will happen - the math says so. There is simply no such thing as a responsible drunk - they are irresponsible by nature - that is why they are drunks.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,214
He is really a tyrant that looks down on us peons.
I would disagree as he was drunk at home. Not out driving our streets or in public period.
the article was so poorly written that I dont have any thoughts to why he was charged in the first place..
- Status
