HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » It's not illegal to be dr...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:08 PM

 

It's not illegal to be drunk in your home with a gun, Michigan appeals court rules

Source: Detroit Free Press

People canít be charged with a crime simply because they possessed a firearm while intoxicated inside their own home, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a case arising from an incident involving former House Speaker Craig DeRoche.

Novi police charged DeRoche with possessing a firearm while intoxicated in 2010 after they were called to his home following a dispute with a neighbor.

A district court dismissed the charge, based on DeRocheís Second Amendment rights. The prosecutor appealed to the circuit court, which upheld the dismissal on the basis of an unlawful search.

In a unanimous ruling released today, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, based on the Second Amendment...

Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20130130/NEWS15/130130076/It-s-not-illegal-drunk-your-home-gun-Michigan-appeals-court-rules?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

41 replies, 5469 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply It's not illegal to be drunk in your home with a gun, Michigan appeals court rules (Original post)
michigandem58 Jan 2013 OP
Socal31 Jan 2013 #1
randome Jan 2013 #2
Socal31 Jan 2013 #4
randome Jan 2013 #8
0rganism Jan 2013 #14
Socal31 Jan 2013 #16
0rganism Jan 2013 #17
dballance Jan 2013 #28
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #11
Socal31 Jan 2013 #12
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #18
Socal31 Jan 2013 #20
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #22
Socal31 Jan 2013 #27
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #30
Peregrine Jan 2013 #3
FiveGoodMen Jan 2013 #6
onpatrol98 Jan 2013 #23
bemildred Jan 2013 #5
qazplm Jan 2013 #7
Redford Jan 2013 #9
MNBrewer Jan 2013 #10
Thor_MN Jan 2013 #13
awoke_in_2003 Jan 2013 #21
onpatrol98 Jan 2013 #24
snooper2 Jan 2013 #25
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #19
dballance Jan 2013 #29
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #31
dballance Jan 2013 #32
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #33
Gman Jan 2013 #15
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #26
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #34
lynne Jan 2013 #35
primavera Jan 2013 #37
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #38
happyslug Jan 2013 #36
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #39
happyslug Jan 2013 #40
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #41

Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:12 PM

1. Not sure why this would even be a question.

If he had used the weapon in an illegal manner, then it would be a very serious crime, sober or drunk. Obviously he didn't, or he would have been charged with crime that reflected that behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:20 PM

2. Sure. But if he used the weapon 'in an illegal manner', someone could be dead.

A little late to be worried about the proper way to make charges.

If he had a dispute with his neighbor and was drunk, I think that should be grounds for taking his firearm away until he was sober.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:28 PM

4. I just don't see that standing up to any court challenge.

Your home is your home...impossible enforcement.

Step out in the street, they could have easily taken him for Drunk in Public just to let things cool down for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:43 PM

8. The article doesn't explain what the 'dispute' was.

I agree if he was in his home, then nothing more need be done. But if he was in the back yard and threatening his neighbor, then the gun needs to be taken away. It doesn't sound like that was the case, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:19 PM

14. try growing MJ in your home and see if that still works out

Your home is your home until they fly an IR-equipped helicopter overhead or notice a surge in your electric bill.

impossible enforcement? Maybe the enforcers just haven't been creative enough yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:44 PM

16. Marijuana can be grown in the home where I am.

However, that is beside the point. In most of the country, growing MJ is illegal, period. Local law enforcement still seeks out personal use MJ growers, unlike here in CA.

Being drunk in your home is legal. Being in "possession" of a gun in your home is legal. There are many other problems with your comparison, but I will stop there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:50 PM

17. you're quite lucky to have that privelege

my point is simply that given how creative the DEA and its allies have been in sussing out MJ growers, it's a bit premature to say that enforcement of any particular law is "impossible." There might well be a way. It would suck and probably at least appear to violate the 4th amendment, but so do many of the MJ suppression tactics and they've been propped up by kangaroo courts for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 0rganism (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:56 AM

28. Would you Please Not Bring Irrelevant Arguments Into This. The Thread is not about MJ.

First of all, the IR scanning of a home has already been shot down as an illegal search by SCOTUS - February 20, 2001, in re Kyllo v. United States. Unless they have probable cause and a warrant they can't get your utility bills. Without the thermal imaging they'll have to find another creative way to get that warrant.

Secondly, growing MJ is illegal in most places but owning a fire arm is not. Nor is becoming intoxicated in your own home. To arrest him for being in his home where there was a fire arm is tantamount to arresting him for DUII because he's intoxicated near the car in his driveway.

If the the person was out in the yard or street waving the gun around then it's a whole other ballgame. But there is no indication in the story this was the case.

So your attempt to make a comparison between the two is spurious at best. This thread was not started to be about MJ growing or how creative the DEA can be in trying to catch people. You are totally off topic. If you want to discuss those issues then start your own thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:12 PM

11. That is not how the law is applied outside the home.

I would like to know what 'possessed' meant in this case. Was it in his hand, or on his person while drunk? If so, I think the law should apply to him even in his home. There is no exemption for the interior of private property. If someone else called it in and the police were summoned, 'unreasonable search' probably shouldn't protect him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:17 PM

12. No exemption for the interior of private property?

I was going to actually list how rediculous that is, but I won't even try if you don't think there are different standards for your home V public, or even public V your vehicle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:02 PM

18. except i didn't say any of that bullshit you just attributed to me.

DeRoche had the gun on his person (in his pocket) when the second witness also called police. Second witness also heart the word 'kill' without the context that he used the word in. Since the witness witnessed a crime (in possession of a firearm while intoxicated) AND according to the statements in the press, had reasonable suspicion he might do harm to himself or someone else, unreasonable search probably shouldn't be applied. If someone lawfully in your home witnesses you with a pound of cocaine and calls the police, you would not skip on the grounds of an unreasonable search in most cases, even without a warrant. They've already got probable cause a crime is being committed.

I can be naked in my house. No indecency issues. Privacy protects that. However, if I do it in front of an open window for a couple hours and a reasonable person not peeping sees me, that can be indecent exposure, even though I am inside my home. How is this relevant? Most handguns can put a round right through an exterior wall. Having a firearm on your person while drunk is really only a private matter if you live in an old abandoned NIKE missile silo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:12 PM

20. Being in possession of a firearm in your home while intoxicated is not a crime.

The courts agree.

However, if he threatened someone, it doesn't matter if you are drunk or sober. But he was not charged with assault or terroristic threats, he was charged with a "crime" that any sane court can and will throw out.

Every gun owner in America would be a "criminal" every time they had a drink on their couch, because they would be in constructive possession of a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:35 PM

22. Does not follow.

I can go to a bar in public, and leave my firearm in my vehicle, without any risk toward that statute. Having it on your person is an entirely different level of 'possession' than being in the house with the firearm still secured in the safe he retrieved it from.

I believe the court was in error, and the state should appeal.

Do you imagine you could construct something classified Destructive Device inside your home, and claim the 2nd Amendment as your basis by virtue of being in your home, rather than in public? That firearm presents a danger to people outside the home, just as a pipe bomb might throw shrapnel beyond the walls of your house. A handgun can easily penetrate residential walls, including the thicker exterior walls. Laws against discharging a firearm inside city limits would apply within the private confines of your house, even if the round did not exit the structure, if someone witnessed it, and called the police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:29 AM

27. You aren't following it, so we can agree to disagree.

That was an appeal by the way, and it was very clear.

You sound like you just don't like personal firearm ownership in general. A sleepy person who shoots at an intruder could miss just as easily as someone who fits the legal definition of "drunk", and penetrate walls.

It seems like you are not following much of anything, because discharging a firearm in your home for self-defense is absolutely legal, even with the risk of it going through a wall.

Your understanding of firearms laws is lacking, and unfortunately that is what the NRA-fundies use against people who would like to advance sensible gun control.

I never stated you can do what you want in your home, like it is some foreign embassy. But you can do many things in your home that you cannot do in public. Police cannot come into my home to check if I am "intoxicated", and then if I am "intoxicated", search the home for a weapon. Never going to happen.

Pipe bombs are illegal, period. Thats not even apples and oranges, that's apples and barney the dinosaur.

Guns are legal in your home. Being "intoxicated" is legal in your home. Having your gun in your pocket when other people are in the home is legal. Threatening someone to use said gun on them is HIGHLY illegal, and that person will lose their gun rights for the rest of their life in most cases.

Having constructive or physical possession of a gun will never be illegal inside the home, as long as the gun is legal and you are legally allowed to own it.


Most emotional conversations about guns I see here are a waste of time. The threads degrade into name calling and accusations. The NRA probably LOVES that the issue splits the party base.

We should not be talking about innocuous stories like this, we need to be rallying around my Senator's bill. People in Nevada should be calling Harry and DEMANDING a vote. Letters, grass-roots, etc to get sensible legislation on the table before it is too late. Posting every story of a shooting is not going to pass a bill. Let's get every vote on record, and see who calls in sick that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Socal31 (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:40 AM

30. You don't know me at all.

I couldn't reliably tell you how many firearms I own off the top of my head. They seem to multiply in the dark, inside the safes. And I own many weapons on the proposed list by Feinstein. I have been posting here for many years in support of ALL of our civil rights, including the 2nd amendment. However, as Scalia noted, there are limits.

"A sleepy person who shoots at an intruder could miss just as easily as someone who fits the legal definition of "drunk", and penetrate walls"

There is no statute against possessing a firearm while sleepy. There is one about doing so under the influence.

"Your understanding of firearms laws is lacking, and unfortunately that is what the NRA-fundies use against people who would like to advance sensible gun control."

Try me. Federal or state level. Bring it on. You have mis-identified your target, badly.

"I never stated you can do what you want in your home, like it is some foreign embassy. But you can do many things in your home that you cannot do in public. Police cannot come into my home to check if I am "intoxicated", and then if I am "intoxicated", search the home for a weapon. Never going to happen."

Useless comparison. That is not what happened here. A witness observed him INSIDE his home, retrieving the gun and keeping it ON HIS PERSON, while drunk, and called the police with a reasonable fear for his, or someone else's safety (kill comment). This was not a case of 'searching the home' fishing expedition to associate a drunk person in the privacy of his own home with a weapon somewhere in the home. The witness observed him retrieving the firearm from storage and placing it in his pocket. Searching for the weapon that was no longer on his person was not an attempt to construct possession, it was collecting evidence to corroborate the story of the witness.

"Pipe bombs are illegal, period. Thats not even apples and oranges, that's apples and barney the dinosaur."

Amusing. And you just questioned my understanding of firearms laws. A pipe bomb is a Destructive Device, classed like a grenade. You can acquire or make one with the proper permits and fees (ATF Form 1 Destructive Device, 200$ tax stamp per device, and a class 10 FFL over a certain sized payload. You could even store it in your home if you met the ATF storage magazine requirements.).

"Guns are legal in your home. Being "intoxicated" is legal in your home. Having your gun in your pocket when other people are in the home is legal. Threatening someone to use said gun on them is HIGHLY illegal, and that person will lose their gun rights for the rest of their life in most cases."

It is the combination of intoxication PLUS the gun on your person that is in question here. Guns are also legal in public. Being intoxicated to a certain threshold in public is legal. Having a gun in your pocket (In my state with the proper permit) is legal. Combine the last two, and you have instantly crossed a legal line, that has no exemption for being on private property/inside your home. I consider this matter still unsettled, but current case law supports your contention for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:20 PM

3. Wish they had ruled based on privacy rights

Instead of 2nd amend

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peregrine (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:38 PM

6. Me, too.

In any case, unless he was waving the gun around carelessly or threateningly, I don't even see how this became a charge.

Did the cops think that anyone with a gun must remain sober for life?

Or did they think that all gun owners must leave their home (unarmed, of course) in order to have a drink? (And then stay away from home till their livers had processed all the alcohol?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:43 PM

23. Quote: (And then stay away from home till their livers had processed all the alcohol?)

I almost spit out my soda...too funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:36 PM

5. Sounds kinky. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 07:42 PM

7. correct ruling

I concur that I think the more proper basis would have been a 4th amendment right, and basically on the premise that unless he was actually using the weapon improperly then the fact that it was on his premises does not mean he actually meaningfully possessed it.

Yes, he technically possessed it because all possession means legally is maintaining exclusive control (well you can co-possess something but ignoring that technicality)...and you can possess something by simply having it in your house.

So taken to a further extreme, you couldn't be drunk anywhere, because you still possessed the gun legally, even as you didn't physically wield or carry it while drunk, which is clearly the intent of that statute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:05 PM

9. Whew! I'd get the electric chair!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 08:08 PM

10. I'm drunk right now, and there's a car in my GARAGE!! OH NOES!!!!1!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:17 PM

13. I think you will be OK, as long as you are not waving it around and threatening

your neighbor with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:31 PM

21. I tried...

but ended up getting a hernia trying to pick up the station wagon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 11:44 PM

24. I think you will be OK, as long as you are not waving it around and threatening

your neighbor with it.

Reply:
There's a joke in there somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:04 AM

25. Does that apply to polish sausage too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 10:04 PM

19. The gun was in his pocket, not merely in the house.

Witness that called the police also had reasonable fear for his safety, or that of another person, as the witness heard him mumble something about 'kill', after he entered the house, drunk, and retrieved the weapon from storage, then locking himself in his room.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:27 AM

29. That Information Wasn't in the Linked-to Article. Where'd you find it? /eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:48 AM

31. Looks like three people called the cops actually.

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=123214

This was the most complete version of the story I could find. It was reported in-depth on the Detroit Free Press, but has since been archived, so his wiki page needs updating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:56 AM

32. That's A Much Better Detailed Version of the Story

Puts a whole different light on things when you learn he was brandishing the weapon in one of his kids' rooms. I can see why the police arrested him to try to prevent him from being a danger to himself or others. I guess they must not be able to charge him with something like drunk and disorderly rather than the gun charge if he's in his home and not out in public. I'm sure an astute prosecutor can find an appropriate charge.

Hopefully a prosecutor will find a charge that will stick and then a judge can order him to get some counseling. Given his recent history of a DUII and now this it seems obvious he has a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:59 AM

33. Yeah, the story has been spun like he was drunk inside his home, and they searched

the home on a fishing expedition and found the gun.

That's not really what happened at all, if the witnesses story held up in court, per that description.
I'm not surprised the defense would try to spin it that way though. That's exactly what I would do, if I was a defense lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Wed Jan 30, 2013, 09:21 PM

15. I have no problem with this

once he steps out side, drunk on his ass and waving a gun, he's got problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to michigandem58 (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 12:19 AM

26. This is a sensible ruling. Where on earth would anyone get the idea

that a person couldn't be inside their own home and possess ALL their personal property??

Whoever tried to prosecute this guy makes gun control advocates look like a bunch of crazy people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:00 AM

34. Please read this account of what happened, and see if it changes your opinion.

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=123214

Based on ONLY the reported story in the OP, I would otherwise agree with you. But this account of what happened the night of, changes things a bit for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:23 AM

35. Family members should remove the guns from the house -

- until he can get his drinking under control but I don't see where he committed a crime. His actions were bizarre and certainly it's not safe to handle a gun when you're intoxicated but there's no law against it.

Charge him with endangering a child or some other charge that will stick. But the ruling about it's not illegal to be drunk in your home with is a gun is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:57 AM

37. I'm about as anti-gun as they get...

... and even I have to agree with your assessment. This isn't a problem the law can address; it needs to be handled by the family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lynne (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 11:59 AM

38. It's absolutely illegal outside the home to handle a firearm while drunk.

It's why the 'guns in bars' issues is moot. I have occasion to be in bars, while carrying, without drinking. For instance, I'm always a designated driver, I don't really drink. But there is food, and social gatherings in bars. So the prohibition on carrying into a bar is redundant/overkill and requires people like me to plan far ahead, because I don't like to leave my gun in the car for risk it will be stolen.

My understanding of the law against handling a firearm while drunk, makes me assume it would be illegal even within the confines of my home. Keep in mind, I restrict that to a narrow definition of 'possess' to mean on my person or in my hand, not just inside the home, in a safe or wherever it is stored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to happyslug (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 04:41 PM

39. Basically the Prosecution sucked.

" While preventing intoxicated individuals from committing crimes involving handguns is an important government objective, the infringement on defendantís right in the instant case was not substantially related to that objective. We initially note that, at the time of the officersí entry into the home, and at the time they were actually able to establish the level of defendantís intoxication, defendantís possession was constructive rather than actual. Thus, to allow application of this statute to defendant under these circumstances, we would in essence be forcing a person to choose between possessing a firearm in his home and consuming alcohol. But to force such a choice is unreasonable. As the facts illustrate, there was no sign of unlawful behavior or any perceived threat that a crime involving a handgun would be committed. We note that the Legislature, in crafting the concealed pistol license statute, recognized both the concern with an intoxicated person carrying a firearm and that it is unnecessary to prohibit an intoxicated person from merely being in the vicinity of a firearm. Under MCL 28.425k(2), it is an offense for a person to carry a concealed pistol while under the influence of alcohol.4 But MCL 28.425k(3) provides for the intoxicated person to have the pistol secured in a vehicle in which the person is an occupant without violating the provisions of subsection 2. In other words, the governmentís legitimate concern is not that a person who has consumed alcohol is in the vicinity of a firearm, but that he actually has it in his physical possession.
In conclusion, the government cannot justify infringing on defendantís Second Amendment right to possess a handgun in his home simply because defendant was intoxicated in the general vicinity of the firearm. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding that MCL 750.237, as applied to defendant, was unconstitutional. "

This, along with the court finding:

"The officers approached the house and spoke with defendantís mother-in-law at the door. The mother-in-law stated that defendant no longer had a gun and that she had taken it and hidden it in the house. She let the officers in, showed them the gun which she had hidden in the bottom of a garbage can in the laundry room with the clip found next to the gun. Officer Shea indicated that he wished to speak with defendant and was informed that defendant was upstairs. "


"The district court concluded that, while there was evidence that defendant was intoxicated based upon a blood alcohol test, no evidence was introduced to show that defendant was in actual physical possession of the gun."


It appears that the prosecution did not enter the Mother-in-law's testimony that he HAD the gun in his hand at some point prior to the call, OR, the prosecution could not establish that he was drunk at that time.

Given the findings of the court, I maintain it is not legal to have a gun on your person, even in your own home, while intoxicated. (but it may be legal for the firearm to be IN the house, just not on your person)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:33 PM

40. I have a problem with the decision, one sentence puts me off

we would in essence be forcing a person to choose between possessing a firearm in his home and consuming alcohol. But to force such a choice is unreasonable


I defend the right to bare arms and I defend the right to own a firearm, but firearms (and most other things, including Automobiles and women) do NOT mix well with Alcohol. Yes, I like to drink when I go out on the town and looking for a women to pick up, but the sex is a lot better when both of us are sober. The same with Firearms and driving, both are a lot better if the people using them are sober.

The older I get, the more I see why so many people supported Prohibition, contrary to popular opinion, most people can NOT handle alcohol and given the choice most people should opt for anything else over alcohol (including women, cars and firearms). Alcohol comes up so often in abuse cases and custody cases (much more then drugs, through drugs when they come up are as bad) you come to the conclusion a lot of problems would disappear if alcohol (and other drugs) would go away.

Thus I do NOT mind forcing such a choice, Alcohol and anything else (firearms in this case, but that can include Children, Spouses, Cars etc) and if they choose alcohol not firearms (of whatever the other choice is). The sentence of the Michigan Supreme Court thus upsets me, I would make a broad exception for anything if Alcohol is involved.

Now, the court could have avoided my objections by simply pointing out that the Defendant was NEVER near any Firearm when he was seen drunk by the Police Officers AND as long as the Defendant made that "Choice", no problem. I would have kept the door open for police to entered into someone's house when they can see someone is acting intoxicated (and leave that up to the Police Officer to determine, but based on observable facts) OR acting on information that the Defendant is intoxicated AND carrying a Firearm (loader or unloaded).

Reading between the lines I think the Court would agree with me, but they wanted to rule on the Second Amendment and the home of the Defendant and clearly restrict what Police could do with firearms in someone's home NOT to rule that the Police would have acted correctly if they saw the Defendant intoxicated AND with a firearm.

Thus this ruling is a lot narrower then it appears at first glance, but alcohol is a problem and to state that people can choose Alcohol AND firearms (or Automobiles, spouses or children) is just a Red Flag for me, people have to learn it Alcohol mixes well with nothing and if you choose alcohol, be prepared to give up other things you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 05:49 PM

41. Yep. Same for me.

I expect that if an officer witnessed him with the gun, this would have been ruled the other way.

For some reason the mother-in-law's testimony wasn't entered, or wasn't found credible. They basically called out the prosecution with that 'wasn't entered into evidence' line.

So I think you are right. This is a narrow ruling, and they have left the door open for prosecution of direct possession, and closed the door on constructive possession (merely in the home, maybe even in a safe).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread