Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Columbia Tribune)   Missouri attorney general urges state Supreme Court to ban possession of guns while drunk. Darwin inconsolable   (columbiatribune.com ) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Darwin, Missouri, Missouri attorney general, gun rights, possessions, county judge, public defenders, public safety  
•       •       •

1518 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Oct 2009 at 8:54 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-10-02 10:54:05 AM  
Begin Rant:
Another example of an unnecessary law to address a nonexistent problem. Isn't it already illegal to shoot someone (or even at someone) without a good reason, drunk or not? Are there not reckless endangerment laws? This stuff is destroying our country. We have reached the point where there are so many laws, mostly poorly written or overly broad, where on any given day chances are you've committed a crime of some sort. Therefore enforcement is arbitrary, which destroys respect for the law, and thus in effect encourages lawlessness.
End Rant.
 
2009-10-02 10:55:31 AM  

MayoBoy: JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: dittybopper: stevarooni: OutsmartBullet: "The state law at issue makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when the firearm is needed for self-defense"That's a hell of an exception. I guess that it eliminates drunken hunting, but that's about all. If that's the case, why not make it specific? "No drunken hunting."

The problem is also what constitutes "possession".

What if your are having a party, cops get called to your home, and you are drunk, and there happens to be a deer rifle up on the wall?

It's not being used for 'protection', and it's not being transported, it just happens to be there.

Could you be charged, or does it need to be on your person (in your hands or on your hip)?

In Florida you have to have the gun in your hand, and there has to be a round in the chamber to be considered in possession of it while drunk. I would assume that there would be similar language in this bill.


This is Missouri - the same state that tried to outlaw Styrofoam coolers on rivers and ended up outlawing Tupperware instead.


Yeah but tupperware is MUCH MORE hazardous. Have you witnessed the sales tactics they use. FARKIN' TUPPERWARE PARTIES. THEY USE PEER PRESSURE TO SELL THEIR SH*T.

/when they outlaw tupperware only outlaws will have tupperware

JC
 
2009-10-02 11:01:47 AM  
I, for one, **hic** dishagree wiff dis laaaawwww. **thud**
 
2009-10-02 11:04:05 AM  
Also: Can't legislate against stupidity; it'll find a way around it or ignore it. Stupidity always wins.
 
2009-10-02 11:05:36 AM  

OutsmartBullet: Mr.BobDobalita: the problem with making more and more and more laws is someday it's going to be used to screw someone... guys having a night of drinking.. someone busts in door, guy grabs gun and kills armed assailant.. he then goes to jail because he had alcohol in his system... DA states: Our hands are tied.. it's the law...

You know there are articles attached to the headlines, right?

"The state law at issue makes it illegal to possess or discharge a gun while intoxicated. There are exceptions for transporting unloaded guns or when the firearm is needed for self-defense"



Me thinks you missed my point... which is more laws != more safety. Dumb people are going to be dumb. YOu can't save all lives. Also, just because I had dinner and had a toddie, now i can't defend myself?

Broad, general, blanket laws are prime for abuse and misinterpretation. They are continually used against the original spirit of the law.

/dnrtfa
 
2009-10-02 11:06:18 AM  

dittybopper: fenianfark: dittybopper: Now, if a person is brandishing a gun or otherwise engaging in reckless or threatening behavior with a deadly weapon, that's already covered Mississippi state law. Obviously, that's not what this law is intended to do.

That link isn't relevant. It is Mississippi County, in the State of Missouri.

/Just to let you know, you've been on my favorites for a long time.
//Gun owning Missourian.

I must have a case of the stupids this morning.


To be fair, though, I think the sentiment applies. Brandishing, committing a crime through usage, shooting someone, etc. is already illegal. All this does it make it double-plus illegal as well as being nebulous enough to potentially infringe upon legal firearm owners' rights.

I'd rather see this thing stopped cold than have it get into law, have it challenged via the SCOTUS, and overturned.
 
2009-10-02 11:07:13 AM  

Retief of the CDT: Begin Rant:
Another example of an unnecessary law to address a nonexistent problem. Isn't it already illegal to shoot someone (or even at someone) without a good reason, drunk or not? Are there not reckless endangerment laws? This stuff is destroying our country. We have reached the point where there are so many laws, mostly poorly written or overly broad, where on any given day chances are you've committed a crime of some sort. Therefore enforcement is arbitrary, which destroys respect for the law, and thus in effect encourages lawlessness.
End Rant.



QFT!!! my point exactly.
 
2009-10-02 11:09:09 AM  
this is just another meaningless law passed by some blowhard legislator so he/she can get up on their high horse and shout to everyone how they passed laws that would save little johnny and keep everyone ultra-safe.

/triple post?
 
2009-10-02 11:17:53 AM  

stevarooni: "No drunken hunting."


You'll get my gun when you pry it from my cold, drunk hands.
 
2009-10-02 11:27:41 AM  
Bseides the hazy definition of possession, as was covered above, I would like to know how they will define intoxicated. Will it be like driving? Blow .08, and you're getting arrested for carrying a gun.

I agree that guns and alcohol do not mix. I do not agree that the previous statement means lawmakers have to pile on a bunch more laws.
 
2009-10-02 11:30:58 AM  
"[Asst Attorney General] Kramer said [Second Amendment] gun rights should not be prioritized as highly as First Amendment protections."

Wow, talk about a fundamental understanding of law failure. Scary.
 
2009-10-02 11:39:19 AM  

kellyclan: "[Asst Attorney General] Kramer said [Second Amendment] gun rights should not be prioritized as highly as First Amendment protections."


THAT scares the living shiat out of me.
 
2009-10-02 11:39:51 AM  

kellyclan: "[Asst Attorney General] Kramer said [Second Amendment] gun rights should not be prioritized as highly as First Amendment protections."

Wow, talk about a fundamental understanding of law failure. Scary.


Apparently he sees the Bill of Rights as a menu from which to pick and choose. Scary person to have in that high of a position.
 
2009-10-02 11:50:45 AM  
The focus seems to be on the second half of the second amendment, but too many people skip the "Well regulated militia" part of it.

I say that if you want to own a gun, you join the National Guard. If you don't want to be a part of your state's militia, then you don't get a gun.
 
2009-10-02 11:56:05 AM  

Cisco-Kid: The focus seems to be on the second half of the second amendment, but too many people skip the "Well regulated militia" part of it.

I say that if you want to own a gun, you join the National Guard. If you don't want to be a part of your state's militia, then you don't get a gun.


Too bad for you that your interpretation is actually wrong. The well-regulated militia portion actually has a nice legal definition. I'm sure someone with better links saved can post it, but it boils down to every single male in the country from the ages of 18-45 or something like that.
 
B A [TotalFark]
2009-10-02 12:03:37 PM  

ronaprhys: Cisco-Kid: The focus seems to be on the second half of the second amendment, but too many people skip the "Well regulated militia" part of it.

I say that if you want to own a gun, you join the National Guard. If you don't want to be a part of your state's militia, then you don't get a gun.

Too bad for you that your interpretation is actually wrong. The well-regulated militia portion actually has a nice legal definition. I'm sure someone with better links saved can post it, but it boils down to every single male in the country from the ages of 18-45 or something like that.


A militia is, per the original intent of the law, to be formed as needed/when needed & each person to bring his/her own gun for use in the conflict. The idea was to form militia to fight government when it got out of control. Giving that government control over weapon possession/use is a sure way to allow tyranny. To enslave a populace you must first disarm that populace.
 
2009-10-02 12:04:26 PM  
As an avid Missouri hunter (still make it down there for deer season every year), I can tell you all that everyone there hunts while drunk.

As long as the drunk hunters stay on their own property, I don't see a problem with it.

I grew up with some kids who had lost their fathers to drunk hunting accidents which sucked, but that is the risk they took. You take an equal or greater risk every time you get into a car sober.
 
2009-10-02 12:29:08 PM  

Cisco-Kid: The focus seems to be on the second half of the second amendment, but too many people skip the "Well regulated militia" part of it.

I say that if you want to own a gun, you join the National Guard. If you don't want to be a part of your state's militia, then you don't get a gun.


The purpose of the second amendment is to ensure the ability of a populace to defend themselves from a tyrannical government or invaders (foreign or domestic). Police and military units are supplied and controlled by government orders and resources. They fall far outside of the purpose of the second amendment specially BECAUSE they are organized and controlled by the government.
 
2009-10-02 02:23:14 PM  

Cisco-Kid: The focus seems to be on the second half of the second amendment, but too many people skip the "Well regulated militia" part of it.

I say that if you want to own a gun, you join the National Guard. If you don't want to be a part of your state's militia, then you don't get a gun.


The Supreme Court of the United States of America says you are wrong:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia
, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause.
The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation
of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically
capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
The Antifederal-
ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in
order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing
army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress
power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear
arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22-28.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL v. HELLER

I boldified the relevant parts for your reading pleasure.
 
2009-10-02 03:03:51 PM  

dittybopper: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL v. HELLER

I boldified the relevant parts for your reading pleasure.


I do believe that you've done told 'em, right there. The anti's like to pretend that the National Guard of the United States existed in the 1700's, an/or that it's about a State's right (when the rest of them are individual rights). The SCOTUS did a pretty good smackdown of such foolishness in that ruling. Anti-gunners who think they know what the second actually means, would do well to read the ruling you cited, to educate themselves.
 
2009-10-02 03:29:49 PM  
It's Missouri; trust me, they'll still find a way to make love to their cousin.
 
2009-10-02 04:04:22 PM  
 
2009-10-02 05:15:18 PM  

djh0101010: dittybopper: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL v. HELLER

I boldified the relevant parts for your reading pleasure.

I do believe that you've done told 'em, right there. The anti's like to pretend that the National Guard of the United States existed in the 1700's, an/or that it's about a State's right (when the rest of them are individual rights). The SCOTUS did a pretty good smackdown of such foolishness in that ruling. Anti-gunners who think they know what the second actually means, would do well to read the ruling you cited, to educate themselves.


No question, whether you agree with it or not, Heller is the law o' the land.

The question then is -- what are "arms"? To me, that is the more interesting issue, because there is a fair amount of evidence that, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, this term was considered to be a rather broad term that would certainly include all kinds of firearms without limitation and may include weapons other than firearms.

I often get a lot of backlash when I raise this issue with strong proponents of the Second Amendment. At that point, apparently the strict language of the Constitution and the meaning of the terms when the document was written become less important for some reason. Suddenly, it seems like the Constitution is a "living document", as I hear about how the framers could not have foreseen or understood modern weaponry and, for national security purposes and public safety purposes, the Constitution should not be read to allow citizens to have hand held gatling guns and WMDs.

I'd never had the opportunity to read any court interpretations of this term - I'm interested how, in particular a strict constructionist, would address this.

Why can't I go to Walmart and buy a flamethrower?
 
B A [TotalFark]
2009-10-02 06:02:32 PM  

Badoozie: djh0101010: dittybopper: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL v. HELLER

I boldified the relevant parts for your reading pleasure.

I do believe that you've done told 'em, right there. The anti's like to pretend that the National Guard of the United States existed in the 1700's, an/or that it's about a State's right (when the rest of them are individual rights). The SCOTUS did a pretty good smackdown of such foolishness in that ruling. Anti-gunners who think they know what the second actually means, would do well to read the ruling you cited, to educate themselves.

No question, whether you agree with it or not, Heller is the law o' the land.

The question then is -- what are "arms"? To me, that is the more interesting issue, because there is a fair amount of evidence that, at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, this term was considered to be a rather broad term that would certainly include all kinds of firearms without limitation and may include weapons other than firearms.

I often get a lot of backlash when I raise this issue with strong proponents of the Second Amendment. At that point, apparently the strict language of the Constitution and the meaning of the terms when the document was written become less important for some reason. Suddenly, it seems like the Constitution is a "living document", as I hear about how the framers could not have foreseen or understood modern weaponry and, for national security purposes and public safety purposes, the Constitution should not be read to allow citizens to have hand held gatling guns and WMDs.

I'd never had the opportunity to read any court interpretations of this term - I'm interested how, in particular a strict constructionist, would address this.

Why can't I go to Walmart and buy a flamethrower?


You're not rich enough?
 
2009-10-02 06:11:59 PM  
submitter: Missouri attorney general urges state Supreme Court to ban possession of guns while drunk.

The Missouri Supreme Court would *have* to be drunk to ban possession of guns.

Or maybe just controlled by a bunch of soft-headed liberals who don't know the difference between jurisprudence and politics...

/Oh, I incorrectly interpreted your headline and its ambiguously placed modifier? Really? Whose fault is that?
 
B A [TotalFark]
2009-10-02 07:13:01 PM  

SlowTimedRapid: submitter: Missouri attorney general urges state Supreme Court to ban possession of guns while drunk.

The Missouri Supreme Court would *have* to be drunk to ban possession of guns.

Or maybe just controlled by a bunch of soft-headed liberals who don't know the difference between jurisprudence and politics...

/Oh, I incorrectly interpreted your headline and its ambiguously placed modifier? Really? Whose fault is that?


Yours!
I see nothing ambiguous in the placement of words in this headline.
Would have been better/funnier & perhaps more fitting if it had been: Missouri attorney general, while drunk, urges state Supreme Court to ban possession of guns.
 
2009-10-02 07:44:58 PM  

Cisco-Kid: The focus seems to be on the second half of the second amendment, but too many people skip the "Well regulated militia" part of it.

I say that if you want to own a gun, you join the National Guard. If you don't want to be a part of your state's militia, then you don't get a gun.


Sorry to have to break the news to you CK, the National Guard and the Militia are defined by Federal Law as being two seperate groups. GIS the Militia Act and you will probably find that you are already a member of the militia. Google is your friend and your friend will help prevent you from sounding ignorant if you will let him.
 
2009-10-03 11:52:22 AM  

Badoozie: Why can't I go to Walmart and buy a flamethrower?


Because a flamethrower isn't an "arm", it's a "destructive device". Which answers your question but not your point. Certainly beyond the understanding of the press and the general public who uses the press for their only source of information on the topic. They can't even grasp the difference between full-auto and semi-auto. Hell, my 4 year old gets that part, clearly. (The airsoft tommygun is full auto. The .45 ACP one, isn't. Lad asked me why I didn't buy a full auto real Tommygun - sniff - lad makes me proud)
 
Displayed 28 of 78 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report