User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 6:53:35 AM EDT
[#1]
So anyone who ties one on inside their house and owns guns at the same time is a felon? Lot's of "stupid" in MO appearently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 6:55:38 AM EDT
[#2]
That's a terrible fucking ruling.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 6:58:18 AM EDT
[#3]
I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:01:02 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
So anyone who ties one on inside their house and owns guns at the same time is a felon?
Lot's of "stupid" in MO appearently.
No shit––-there are always loaded weapons in my house....glad I ain't in MO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:01:37 AM EDT
[#5]
Depends on how badly that law can be twisted. Common sense is not a common trait in court.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:01:39 AM EDT
[#6]
And of course, undercover cops at bars who drink to 'stay in character' get a free pass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:09:34 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. you are ok with a legal limit for self-defense? if you can't "handle a loaded firearm while intoxicated", then you cannot legally defend yourself, in your own home, after you've had a few drinks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:12:26 AM EDT
[#8]
Bad case law.
I've been intoxicated in my house once or twice over the last ten years. And because I possess a loaded gun (well, several actually) in the home, I would be a felon in MO? Bullshit. John |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:16:55 AM EDT
[#9]
I know that literacy isn't a strength of many here but the article was short and simple.
The law makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when a firearm is needed for self-defense.
Sounds like a reasonable ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:19:42 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms each and everyday. 
One day is anyone that is intoxicated, the next perhaps is anyone with any kind of medical condition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:24:21 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
I know that literacy isn't a strength of many here but the article was short and simple. The law makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when a firearm is needed for self-defense.
Sounds like a reasonable ruling. that's not *really* an exception. you can't have the gun loaded if you are going to drink per this new ruling. so, to comply, you'd have to wait until your life is threatened, retrieve your gun, load it, and then defend yourself... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:26:30 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms each and everyday. One day is anyone that is intoxicated, the next perhaps is anyone with any kind of medical condition. The loss of our freedoms will come from zealots, not from looking at something and seeing the common sense in it. As I stated above, there are already laws in place that prohibit possession of a firearm while intoxicated. What is possession? Does it mean in your home or on your person? I guess that's something that can be argued. But if you want to look at me as a member of the loony left simply because I don't want some dumbass to be in possession (on his person) of a gun while he's drunk, then I guess I'll take the title. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:29:58 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms each and everyday.
One day is anyone that is intoxicated, the next perhaps is anyone with any kind of medical condition. The loss of our freedoms will come from zealots, not from looking at something and seeing the common sense in it. As I stated above, there are already laws in place that prohibit possession of a firearm while intoxicated. What is possession? Does it mean in your home or on your person? I guess that's something that can be argued. But if you want to look at me as a member of the loony left simply because I don't want some dumbass to be in possession (on his person) of a gun while he's drunk, then I guess I'll take the title. Ahh, the ole "common sense" rationale. You're bringing back memories of the orriginal AWB debate. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:31:44 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms each and everyday.
One day is anyone that is intoxicated, the next perhaps is anyone with any kind of medical condition. The loss of our freedoms will come from zealots, not from looking at something and seeing the common sense in it. As I stated above, there are already laws in place that prohibit possession of a firearm while intoxicated. What is possession? Does it mean in your home or on your person? I guess that's something that can be argued. But if you want to look at me as a member of the loony left simply because I don't want some dumbass to be in possession (on his person) of a gun while he's drunk, then I guess I'll take the title. there are plenty of zealots who "look at something and see common sense in it." anti-gun zealots see "common sense" in gun bans (or have you never heard the term "common sense gun control"), and have indeed acted to limit or revoke our freedoms as a result of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:36:31 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: The laws are for PUBLIC possesion while intoxicated. If I want to get drunk in my house, where there are guns, that is my right. This law and the precedence of this arrest would make that illegal. I keep a loaded gun within arms reach 100% of the time when I am at home drinking or not. Quoted: Quoted: I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms each and everyday. One day is anyone that is intoxicated, the next perhaps is anyone with any kind of medical condition. The loss of our freedoms will come from zealots, not from looking at something and seeing the common sense in it. As I stated above, there are already laws in place that prohibit possession of a firearm while intoxicated. What is possession? Does it mean in your home or on your person? I guess that's something that can be argued. But if you want to look at me as a member of the loony left simply because I don't want some dumbass to be in possession (on his person) of a gun while he's drunk, then I guess I'll take the title. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:40:32 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms each and everyday. One day is anyone that is intoxicated, the next perhaps is anyone with any kind of medical condition. The loss of our freedoms will come from zealots, not from looking at something and seeing the common sense in it. As I stated above, there are already laws in place that prohibit possession of a firearm while intoxicated. What is possession? Does it mean in your home or on your person? I guess that's something that can be argued. But if you want to look at me as a member of the loony left simply because I don't want some dumbass to be in possession (on his person) of a gun while he's drunk, then I guess I'll take the title. Ahh, the ole "common sense" rationale. You're bringing back memories of the orriginal AWB debate. You're right....silly me. How stupid of me to dare to even contemplate the idea of not letting a drunkard walk around with a gun. Yep, you got it TGC. Hey, and while you're at it, why don't you start the fight to allow violent criminals the right to regain their 2A freedoms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:42:38 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The laws are for PUBLIC possesion while intoxicated. If I want to get drunk in my house, where there are guns, that is my right. This law and the precedence of this arrest would make that illegal. I keep a loaded gun within arms reach 100% of the time when I am at home drinking or not.
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms each and everyday.
One day is anyone that is intoxicated, the next perhaps is anyone with any kind of medical condition. The loss of our freedoms will come from zealots, not from looking at something and seeing the common sense in it. As I stated above, there are already laws in place that prohibit possession of a firearm while intoxicated. What is possession? Does it mean in your home or on your person? I guess that's something that can be argued. But if you want to look at me as a member of the loony left simply because I don't want some dumbass to be in possession (on his person) of a gun while he's drunk, then I guess I'll take the title. And those laws depend on the state, anyway. Vermont must be a bloodbath, what with no state laws about carrying guns while drinking or in bars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:51:01 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know that literacy isn't a strength of many here but the article was short and simple. The law makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when a firearm is needed for self-defense.
Sounds like a reasonable ruling. that's not *really* an exception. you can't have the gun loaded if you are going to drink per this new ruling. so, to comply, you'd have to wait until your life is threatened, retrieve your gun, load it, and then defend yourself... Yep, don't be surprised when the prosecutor says your use of a firearm for defense while intoxicated is prima facia evidence of possession while intoxicated before you were attack, and at that time, not for defense. What are you going to do, ask the attacker to stop while you go get your gun? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:54:23 AM EDT
[#19]
It sounds like the guy is going to be tried for possessing a loaded firearm in his own home while intoxicated.
"Possession" can mean different things, legally, I suppose. A firearm in the trunk of a vehicle I am driving is in my possession. If I take my firearm to the range and hand it to my son, it is in HIS possession. This looks like a poorly worded law that does make it possible for you to be charged, under the court's interpretation, with owning firearms and getting a buzz on in your own home. That is what the state will charge this man with, unless I missed something reading the article. He was found intoxicated in his own home with a loaded firearm. ETA; It's a fucked up law that needs to be re-written. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:57:16 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Mo. Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession by intoxicated people Wednesday, November 18, 2009 The Associated Press JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. –– The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state law barring intoxicated people from having guns. The ruling clears the way for the prosecution of a Southeast Missouri man found unconscious with a loaded gun in 2006. John L. Richard, of Benton, was found passed out in a chair in his home after he threatened to kill himself –– or make police do it –– after his wife told him she was leaving, according to briefs filed with the Supreme Court. Richard took an unknown amount of morphine and an antidepressant after arguing with his wife, the briefs said. He was charged with a felony for possessing a loaded gun while intoxicated, but a Mississippi County judge declared the law unconstitutional and dismissed the case before trial in 2008. The state Supreme Court overruled that decision 7-0, saying Missouri has the authority to regulate how residents handle guns. "Possession of a loaded firearm by an intoxicated a sober individual poses a demonstrated threat to public safety," Judge Richard Teitelman wrote in the majority opinion. He noted several cases in which an intoxicated a sober person was reported to have shot someone. The law makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when a firearm is needed for self-defense. Violations are a misdemeanor, but because Richard's gun was loaded, the charge was elevated to a felony punishable with up to four years in prison. Public defender Craig Johnston, who represented Richard, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday. In September, Johnston argued before the Supreme Court that the ban was too broad and threatened to criminalize legal behavior. http://www.semissourian.com/story/1587863.html Post hoc ergo propter hoc bullshit. I hope SCOTUS gets this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 7:57:46 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms each and everyday.
One day is anyone that is intoxicated, the next perhaps is anyone with any kind of medical condition. The loss of our freedoms will come from zealots, not from looking at something and seeing the common sense in it. As I stated above, there are already laws in place that prohibit possession of a firearm while intoxicated. What is possession? Does it mean in your home or on your person? I guess that's something that can be argued. But if you want to look at me as a member of the loony left simply because I don't want some dumbass to be in possession (on his person) of a gun while he's drunk, then I guess I'll take the title. You don't loose you right to self defense because your drunk. Nor does the possession of a firearm depend on your intelligence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:01:47 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: The laws are for PUBLIC possesion while intoxicated. If I want to get drunk in my house, where there are guns, that is my right. This law and the precedence of this arrest would make that illegal. I keep a loaded gun within arms reach 100% of the time when I am at home drinking or not. Quoted: Quoted: I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms each and everyday. One day is anyone that is intoxicated, the next perhaps is anyone with any kind of medical condition. The loss of our freedoms will come from zealots, not from looking at something and seeing the common sense in it. As I stated above, there are already laws in place that prohibit possession of a firearm while intoxicated. What is possession? Does it mean in your home or on your person? I guess that's something that can be argued. But if you want to look at me as a member of the loony left simply because I don't want some dumbass to be in possession (on his person) of a gun while he's drunk, then I guess I'll take the title. You must have missed the part about the guy being passed IN HIS HOUSE. This is a very bad decision. Missouri has some very archaic laws that just need to be done away with. This is just a stupid ruling. Now if the cops have any reason to enter your house they can add a charge a drunken possession if you have a loaded gun in the house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:05:22 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I know that literacy isn't a strength of many here but the article was short and simple. The law makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when a firearm is needed for self-defense.
Sounds like a reasonable ruling. that's not *really* an exception. you can't have the gun loaded if you are going to drink per this new ruling. so, to comply, you'd have to wait until your life is threatened, retrieve your gun, load it, and then defend yourself... Yep, don't be surprised when the prosecutor says your use of a firearm for defense while intoxicated is prima facia evidence of possession while intoxicated before you were attack, and at that time, not for defense. What are you going to do, ask the attacker to stop while you go get your gun? Exactly what I was thinking. I'm embarrassed that this came out of my state. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:14:24 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The laws are for PUBLIC possesion while intoxicated. If I want to get drunk in my house, where there are guns, that is my right. This law and the precedence of this arrest would make that illegal. I keep a loaded gun within arms reach 100% of the time when I am at home drinking or not. Quoted: Quoted: I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms each and everyday. One day is anyone that is intoxicated, the next perhaps is anyone with any kind of medical condition. The loss of our freedoms will come from zealots, not from looking at something and seeing the common sense in it. As I stated above, there are already laws in place that prohibit possession of a firearm while intoxicated. What is possession? Does it mean in your home or on your person? I guess that's something that can be argued. But if you want to look at me as a member of the loony left simply because I don't want some dumbass to be in possession (on his person) of a gun while he's drunk, then I guess I'll take the title. You must have missed the part about the guy being passed IN HIS HOUSE. This is a very bad decision. Missouri has some very archaic laws that just need to be done away with. This is just a stupid ruling. Now if the cops have any reason to enter your house they can add a charge a drunken possession if you have a loaded gun in the house. No, what you and TGC are both missing is that in this particular case this person made threats against his wife and himself, which ended up requiring a police response. This wasn't a case of the guy minding his own business when all the sudden Precrime breaks in and stops him. What's the old saying? "Don't invite the Man into your life." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:14:47 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
The law makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when a firearm is needed for self-defense. Violations are a misdemeanor, but because Richard's gun was loaded, the charge was elevated to a felony punishable with up to four years in prison. So does God himself come down to the courthouse to make misdemeanors felonies or how does that work? And wouldn't any of those MISDEMEANORS where a gun is "discharged" have involved a loaded gun???  Where are the felony charges for those cases?? These prosecutors should run for garbage commissioner and leave law enforcement to people with the capacity for rational thought. Holey fucking retardation...
And anyway... the guy was gonna commit suicide, right? I can just see how this excellent law will now work... Depressed guy: "I'm gonna kill myself" "Oh shit, I'm drunk" "If I load my gun I'll be breaking the law" "I better not kill myself" "I'm gonna go vote for hope and change instead" do these fucking RETARDS coming up with this shit even pause to think of the stupidity of what they are proposing? ETA: Ok, why wasn't the guy arrested for terroristic threats or something appropriate, rather than the prosecutor using a "gun law" as a catch-all? Sounds like someone has a political axe to grind here... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:16:45 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. In your own house? I see a HUGE problem with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:25:45 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mo. Supreme Court upholds ban on gun possession by intoxicated people Wednesday, November 18, 2009 The Associated Press JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. –– The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state law barring intoxicated people from having guns. The ruling clears the way for the prosecution of a Southeast Missouri man found unconscious with a loaded gun in 2006. John L. Richard, of Benton, was found passed out in a chair in his home after he threatened to kill himself –– or make police do it –– after his wife told him she was leaving, according to briefs filed with the Supreme Court. Richard took an unknown amount of morphine and an antidepressant after arguing with his wife, the briefs said. He was charged with a felony for possessing a loaded gun while intoxicated, but a Mississippi County judge declared the law unconstitutional and dismissed the case before trial in 2008. The state Supreme Court overruled that decision 7-0, saying Missouri has the authority to regulate how residents handle guns. "Possession of a loaded firearm by an intoxicated a sober individual poses a demonstrated threat to public safety," Judge Richard Teitelman wrote in the majority opinion. He noted several cases in which an intoxicated a sober person was reported to have shot someone. The law makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when a firearm is needed for self-defense. Violations are a misdemeanor, but because Richard's gun was loaded, the charge was elevated to a felony punishable with up to four years in prison. Public defender Craig Johnston, who represented Richard, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday. In September, Johnston argued before the Supreme Court that the ban was too broad and threatened to criminalize legal behavior. http://www.semissourian.com/story/1587863.html Post hoc ergo propter hoc bullshit. I hope SCOTUS gets this. what, you expect Judges to make RATIONAL decisions? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:27:54 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: I know that literacy isn't a strength of many here but the article was short and simple. The law makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when a firearm is needed for self-defense. Sounds like a reasonable ruling. Really? Because I carry a gun for self defense ALL the time. In fact, I NEED that gun. Doesn't mean I'm always shooting it though. So you're thinking falls in line that your a felon up and to the point that you actually pull it out and shoot it in self defense? Once again, this was a horrible ruling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:51:22 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The laws are for PUBLIC possesion while intoxicated. If I want to get drunk in my house, where there are guns, that is my right. This law and the precedence of this arrest would make that illegal. I keep a loaded gun within arms reach 100% of the time when I am at home drinking or not. Quoted: Quoted: I'm not seeing a problem with this. I think some would see this beyond what it means. Some states have laws on the books against being in possession of a firearm while intoxicated, which as far as I'm concerned isn't a bad idea. And we wonder why we're losing our freedoms each and everyday. One day is anyone that is intoxicated, the next perhaps is anyone with any kind of medical condition. The loss of our freedoms will come from zealots, not from looking at something and seeing the common sense in it. As I stated above, there are already laws in place that prohibit possession of a firearm while intoxicated. What is possession? Does it mean in your home or on your person? I guess that's something that can be argued. But if you want to look at me as a member of the loony left simply because I don't want some dumbass to be in possession (on his person) of a gun while he's drunk, then I guess I'll take the title. You must have missed the part about the guy being passed IN HIS HOUSE. This is a very bad decision. Missouri has some very archaic laws that just need to be done away with. This is just a stupid ruling. Now if the cops have any reason to enter your house they can add a charge a drunken possession if you have a loaded gun in the house. No, what you and TGC are both missing is that in this particular case this person made threats against his wife and himself, which ended up requiring a police response. This wasn't a case of the guy minding his own business when all the sudden Precrime breaks in and stops him. What's the old saying? "Don't invite the Man into your life." Let's say you live in an apartment, have some friends over for some beers, and dickhead neighbor calls cops. Cops come, you're "legally intoxicated," and gun in your nightstand drawer = possesion while intoxicated. You're OK with that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 8:56:15 AM EDT
[#30]
He noted several cases in which an intoxicated person was reported to have shot someone.
That is the quote that got me fucking riled.... SEVERAL cases? What about the NIGHTLY fucking barroom brawls wherein people get assaulted? Are we going to just ban booze? Oh, wait; they tried that already. Crime skyrocketed. WTF kind of place are we living in these days? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 11:21:00 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Depends on how badly that law can be twisted. Common sense is not a common trait in court. Stupid behavior begets stupid laws. Getting drunk and calling the police to come and kill him wasn't all that bright an idea on his part either, was it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 12:00:51 PM EDT
[#32]
Yeah, I see a HUGE problem with this as well.
Hell, I on occasion don't just get intoxicated at home, I once in a while get fuckin snot slingin DRUNK in my own home, and I'll use a weapon to defend my family, myself and my home no matter WHAT my state of inebriation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 12:02:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Depends on how badly that law can be twisted. Common sense is not a common trait in court. Stupid behavior begets stupid laws. Getting drunk and calling the police to come and kill him wasn't all that bright an idea on his part either, was it? No, it was pretty pathetic and stupid. However, I don't support running off and making up a law every time some idiot does something stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 12:05:30 PM EDT
[#34]
6 months ago I would have been surprised at some people on this site thinking this was a good ruling. Now, not so much.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 2:18:42 PM EDT
[#35]
Some people here can't see the forest for the trees. The real issue is not whether the dumbass in the story deserves getting his ass handed to him in court. It's the bad case law that will be used to convict others for exercising their RKBA. Like someone else said, we don't need a new law every time someone does something stupid.
It's pretty amazing that some people here think a law like this is a good thing. What's next? No loaded weapons in your house if you are taking cold medicine? No loaded weapons if you have a prescription for painkillers? No loaded weapons if you've ever been diagnosed with depression, anxiety, or erectile dysfunction? Come on guys, it's a slippery slope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 3:03:44 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Depends on how badly that law can be twisted. Common sense is not a common trait in court. Stupid behavior begets stupid laws. Getting drunk and calling the police to come and kill him wasn't all that bright an idea on his part either, was it? No, it was pretty pathetic and stupid. However, I don't support running off and making up a law every time some idiot does something stupid. But that's because you use your head for something other than a hat rack. If you were a fuzzy headed liberal politician, that's all you ever do is making up un-needed laws to prot3ect those unable to think for or protect themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 3:08:30 PM EDT
[#37]
This country is so full of bullshit, meaningless "feel good" laws, anyone can break them without thinking on any given day. We prosecute more people in the US than almost any other country in the world. Really? 4 years for doing drugs and passing out while arguing with your wife? Full of ghey.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 3:29:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
So anyone who ties one on inside their house and owns guns at the same time is a felon?
Lot's of "stupid" in MO appearently.
This is true
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 4:31:26 PM EDT
[#39]
Here in Oklahoma he would have had to be holding the firearm to get charged with possession while intoxicated. just being in the same room or vehicle with a firearm would not fly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 4:48:21 PM EDT
[#40]
another point for legislating from the bench.
i am not aware of any law prohibiting loaded firearms in a persons home while they are intoxicated, please correct me if i'm wrong. barring that, those judges need to get a fucking clue what their job is. its not to make shit up as they go along because it feels right to them. its to interpret what the legislature has actually written into law, not do the legislatures job for them. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 4:51:37 PM EDT
[#41]
When I read the title I was thinking "No problem here, intoxicated people shouldn't be carrying guns." but then to find out this guy was drunk in his own home with a gun. Well that's just fucked up.
One more minute closer to "Go time". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/18/2009 4:53:34 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Here in Oklahoma he would have had to be holding the firearm to get charged with possession while intoxicated. just being in the same room or vehicle with a firearm would not fly. I would bet that MO covers that (although I'm not looking it up), that the gun would have to be in immediate possession (as in: within hand reach, on his body). I think a lot of people replying here are just going with the idea that the guys drunk, cops came and took his guns and charged him, but keep forgetting the part about threatening his wife and himself. Although we'll never know, but it would be interesting to see what he would have been charged with if he didn't have a gun on him (just stored somewhere in the house.). |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
