U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The Ohio Supreme Court will hear arguments in February to decide whether a law prohibiting gun owners from carrying firearms while intoxicated should be applied inside a gun owner’s home,” the Associated Press reported Saturday. Seeing an opportunity for a new and intrusive way to catch more gun owners in the disarmament net, the gun-grabbers are arguing that upholding an arrest is necessary for “the safety of Ohio residents and responding police officers.”
That dovetails nicely (for them) with an overall strategy to disarm citizens convicted of driving under the influence. And it moves things from the public setting right into the home, which is where the long game goal has always been.
As a report, maddeningly few details are given for something with such potential for disenfranchising citizens from a fundamental right. That means it’s in our interest to learn more, even if the DSM is either clueless about the case’s significance and/or uninterested in people finding out.
Fortunately, the AP left enough clues so that the curious could do some investigative reporting of their own. In this case, it was a simple matter of going to the Ohio State Supreme Court website and doing a site search for the terms “drunk + firearms,” then sifting through those results to find one that matched those clues.
We’re talking State v. Weber, a case where despite the defendant’s wife telling police there was no longer a problem, they pressed their way in. There they found her admittedly inebriated but nonthreatening husband who, while he did have a shotgun, told police it was not loaded, which they proved for themselves. Had the man been intent on violence, they’d have known.
Nevertheless, the narrative from the appeals court opinion affirming the appellant’s conviction raises a major concern, aside from those of legality and probable cause:
“Furthermore, R.C.2923.15 does not, as suggested by appellant, criminalize the mere presence of a firearm in the home of an intoxicated person. Nor does the statute, as suggested by appellant, prohibit a person from carrying or using a firearm after consuming alcoholic beverages. Rather, the statute only prohibits the use or carrying of a firearm by a person who has imbibed to the point of intoxication.”
What’s unreasonable about that?
The “point of intoxication,” as defined by Ohio’s OVI laws is a Blood Alcohol Content of 0.08, or 0.02 if under 21. Significantly, a citizen old enough to serve in the military can reach that level after only one drink. And it’s fair to ask how many of us, especially with the holidays approaching, will be inclined to consume several adult beverages over the course of a family gathering. What if you’re carrying, and not all blurry-eyed and speech-slurring like the hapless Mr. Weber was reported to be, but just right there at the legal limit for driving? Where is the “compelling state interest” to define that as the limit point?
But no big deal, right? What are the chances you’ll be caught? Plus, most of us behave, even if we’ve had a few. But that’s hardly the point because we know from experience that what the gun-grabbers do is take their incremental gains and from there press on for more. Why not add court-sentenced “AA” meeting attendees to the other “watchlists” the prohibitionists are demanding?
And it’s curious that the gun-grabbers are, for the most part, silent on the population with a documented “increased risk for problem drinking,” the “Only Ones.”
Still, this isn’t a “popular” case for most “gun rights” lobbying groups to make a big noise defending—who wants to endure the optics of arguing “guns for drunks”? Regardless, the fact remains that there are already ways to deal with people who brandish, and who attack others with weapons.
This isn’t about public safety, it’s about another inroad to citizen disarmament. As for people who have proven they can’t or won’t control themselves, taking their tools but leaving them able to harm others is never the solution.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
This is just more proof that we’re inching ever closer to that 2nd American Revolution (or CW2) I’ve mentioned before. There is a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between the Leftist anti-freedom mob (and their RINO quislings) and the rest of us who take LIVE FREE OR DIE seriously.
Are you willing to hand over a fundamentally less free America to your children & grandkids? Because I can guarandamntee you that since 1969, we have become notably less free in many respects! If your answer is yes, you’re a lousy parent and an even worse citizen.
Currently, I see no way other than a CW2. The communist democrats demand their totalitarian state and their slaves unarmed.
TJ, even when liberty turns to tyranny and injustice becomes law, (to quote 3% founder Mike Vanderboegh) THE ARMED CITIZEN STILL GETS TO VOTE.
They can demand a totalitarian state, but all they’ll get will be lead. Plata y plomo, amigo.
The National Education Association – making liberals of Americans one child at a time.
Government school is the 10th plank of the COMMUNIST manifesto. So they are making them into COMMUNISTS, not liberals. Liberals are mild in comparison.
It’s a done deal they have completed their missions.
Unless Trump can get reelected and we keep the Senate,we are on a collision course that will destroy this country.
Being retired I spend a lot of time on the NET sites inhaling news and info. IF the Feds had a clue HOW close they have pushed the Patriots out there they would stain their pants. It’s all that is talked about among many, and many more are reading it. 7 of 10 normal everyday Americans POLLED said they believe we WILL have another Civil War,unless things change. Above(post) I gave TWO scenarios,ONE would stop the inevitable at the current rate of ignoring the Constitution and the people , the other is a Let’s water the Liberty Tree.(Jefferson would have… Read more »
So, in Ohio, a few beers and your firearms had better be locked up!!
Do you lock up your car keys too??
And the knife drawer in the kitchen!
And the chain saw, hatchet and axe in the garage!
Who gets the to keep the keys??
O, Jeez!!!!!!!!
Don’t forget a #2 pencil,a person can be killed with one in 2 seconds.
Chas, the overseeing enforcers will keep the keys.
“..shall not be infringed”.
Yet, Americans continue to kneel to the whims of tyrants.
Anything other than the exact wording of the Second Amendment is unconstitutional and, as the Founding Fathers admonished us, must be ignored.
Last month another 2+ million weapons were sold(went through NICS).
roughly thru today, 16-20 million more weapons have been sold this year.
Doszap: Not weapons sold, but transferred among free people. The numbers you post are not enough if true. Especially if not transferred to unarmed citizens. These numbers should not be known to our enemies. Our enemies are anyone who desires to interfere with these transfers.
All three branches are so far out of line, along with states. I won’t even go into municipalities. HOA’s. They all only exist at the pleasure of We The People. And they are bound by the supreme law of our Constitution and Bill Of Rights. It’s not a mob rule or authoritarian government. It’s a Republic based on Gods law and biblical principals. It’s long past time to reign in arrogant, treacherous public servants, and the unruly mobs they’ve created to idolize themselves. Voting for the R team, or the D team, or who they put before you isn’t cutting… Read more »
Not everyone who drinks is a drunk or as many teetotalers like to say alcoholics. However, having alcohol in the house should in no way have a bearing on owning or having a gun in the same house. If it is allowed to ban guns in a house with alcohol later it will be prescription drugs and then something else. However, we should also realize some who drink do get drunk and they should be handled individually as the situation demands. Making a law however that pertains to everyone is not only unfair it should be unconstitutional. The constitution upholds… Read more »
Did you bother reading the article or just the clickbait headlines that AmmoLand has used with this screed? Nothing about the case even touches on banning alcohol and guns in the same house. The law and the case are about handling a gun while drunk.
It just keeps creeping into our every day lives. Another little bite of our freedoms being taken by the jack booted thugs called our “employees”. They are not acting to protect the average citizen they are looking at the bigger picture of disarmament for their power grab. I do not understand why these people think they are any smarter than we are or any more deservant of what we have worked for and accumulated. The first kick at my door will bring hot lead to answer. Any police officer that would stoop so low to do this needs his head… Read more »
Domestic Enemy of the U.S. Constitution. This could be shortened to the acronym of “DEUSC”, and while that does sort of come close to “douche”, as in “Don’t be a douche”, it kind of misses the mark in my opinion. So “Domestic Enemy of the U.S. Constitution” can instead be simplified to “Domestic Enemy of the Constitution” – leaving out the “U.S.” part – so as to include all the appropriate state constitutions as well as the U.S. Constitution as required. Then these gun grabbing useful idiot tools of the iron fisted totalitarian left can be referred to simply as… Read more »
Pa John: It would be good to have brief terms to distinguish our thinking enemies from their hapless brainwashed libtards.
So if you have a glass of wine with dinner you must disarm yourself and hope the burglar or invader doesn’t come to your house. Why don’t we ban alcohol instead-oh yeah we tried that once and it spawned organized crime.
Fourth Amendment | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal …
[Search domain http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment%5D https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“We as legal law abiding citizens have three boxes that liberty stands on. The jury box of fellow citizens. The ballot box a vote of and by citizens.”
And finally the cartridge box.
Not my quote, it traces back to the early 1800s.
I can’t imagine the founding fathers locking their guns up. Full Stop.
There, fixed that for ya………..
Remember, the laws in nearly every colony REQUIRED the men to carry their long guns along with them as they walked or rode in the carriage to Sunday Meeting Today we discuss whether ANYONE in the churchhouse can legally BE armed when present. Some states it is a crime to be armed and in the meetinghouse. There was one Sunday morning where General Gage’s men wished that had not been common practice. Gage, the stinker, staged another of his “powder raids” on a Sunday!!!!! What an insult, taking advantage of the people being together in meeting, and not out and… Read more »
overall strategy to disarm citizens convicted of driving under the influence. Most times, this is already happening. DUI is a felony in almost every jurisdiction. Indictment with that felony by itself is disabling from possession of a firearm, and if reported to NICS will prevent a new purchase. Most first time DUI cases will be suspended, rights terminated pending good behaviour and compliance with the terms of the suspension. This can include mandatory substance abuse classes, random mandatory drug/alcohol testing, lossof driving priviledges, sometimes even for work, and generally making absolutely cERTAIN the driver now understands that Big Brother OWNS… Read more »
Those who we have given power to serve and those who have acquire power to be served will attempt to make any firearm prohibiting law ex post facto like the family violence pretense. At the rate of increase of the prohibited persons underclass, it may be able to form its own major political party. That likely would be treated like a slave rebellion.
I will toast to freedom, even under the fear of being arrested for doing so. These acts of oppression should drive us to do something other than just to drink.
All this is is just another way of infiltrating the American lifestyle as corrupt and in need of a socialist nanny state. See if any of these fully adopted Democratic Goals, as read into the record of the Congress of the United States since 1963, doesn’t strike an accord with you. You can either click on the link provided, or just read them here for yourself. See https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/watchwomanonthewall/2011/04/the-45-communist-goals-as-read-into-the-congressional-record-1963.html This what you’re up against, an have been ever since 1963. “Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963 Current Communist Goals EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA… Read more »
Yet, Barry and his tranny ‘wife’ carry concealed always.
That old elitist thinking that the common man is an expendable commodity, not worthy of ‘rights’.
But, the elitists are NOT expendable.,,,so they believe.
And then there is that stuff called cannabis. It is still a schedule one narcotic as far as the Feds are concerned. Do they really want to start opening boxes?
Well me thinks that legalization of marijuana plays right into the gun grabbers goal. As long as Mary J is illegal under Federal Statue then your “right to keep and bears arms” is null and void under Federal Statue.
Some stores in Nebraska now require you let them scan your driver license to buy alcohol. As a 60 year old I find that offensive. More and more the state is stating they own us and will require their permission to buy, sell and own
And if you use that grocery rewards card when shopping, the store has a history of your purchases.
“Sir, you bought 6 bottles of wine on 12/24/2019. You have a history of substance abuse, As a result your request for renewal of your concealed carry permit is denied.”
@Gentlemen, yes, there is a lot of “conviction by false allegation” and Olympic class “conclusion jumping”, going on, now days.
a few years back I heard from a fellow sailor that going to the enlisted club for 3 days in a row meant you were an alcoholic and needed career-ending counseling. he was a mormon, and didn’t drink at all. but he liked to play darts and was in a league. a few hours after work for a few days playing in the league meant he would have to go to alcoholic class, and end every chance he had of getting and keeping a security clearance. so he finally got out. if they can do it to people in the… Read more »
Sad to say…we are heading down the road to the only solution. That solution lies within the purpose of the 2nd amendment. To do to modern day tyrant ENFORCERS what the colonists did to the Red Coat ENFORCERS (you know that thin red line back then) and that is aim small miss small. They are LEAVING US NO CHOICE. If you insist on taking the job then you are part of the problem. The ORDER TAKERS who violate unalienable rights are more accountable then the order givers because they can always tell the order givers to go pound sand. So…is… Read more »
Said it many times, I am already past anymore law making or SO called compromises with a group of leftists voted into office by like minded brain washed morons,that never had a Civics class in their lives., we have two choices.
Balkanization(far preferred) or a Civil War.(Clean house)
When and why did our peace officers begin to be enforcers? Or is it that our peace officers have been displaced in order to install enforcers. The when this occurred depends on location. The why it is occurring is being realized everywhere. Enforcers force will, not laws.
I have every right to use my firearms to protect my family and my home from Republicans, whether I have had a drink or not, and I will fight for my rights until they pry the bottle out of my cold, dead, hands.
You are a month late.
Still applies.
I am a firearms owner and also have a Concealed Handgun Permit. I have long had the belief that someone convicted of DUI should not be issued a Concealed Handgun Permit. To me, it is a question of judgement. Now, as to the issue of having a gun in the home while drunk, that is another issue. A man’s home is his castle and as long as he’s not threatening anyone with his firearm, I don’t have a problem with him having it.
So “one strike” and you’re out? Even if the offense happened 20 years ago? When they begin passing laws abrogating rights for various select groups, you will eventually find yourself on one of those lists. I see no value in CCP/CHP/CWP, our RKBA is a natural and inalienable right; it is not granted or “allowed” by our government. If you are not committing a crime with your firearm does it matter whether or not you previously got drunk? Secondly, where is the correlation in being drunk and firearm ownership? You believe it is okay to be drunk and carry in… Read more »
@KDad, Not have decades of corrupt judges, politicians, and police convinced you that your civil Right to travel is only license by a state government, but they have convinced you that your civil Right to make a meaningful defense of your family, where ever you go, is only permission from the state.
Can you find anywhere in the Const or BOR’s where being drunk (DUI),takes your 4th Amendment rights away?.
What goes on behind closed doors, ain’t no body’s business but their own.
@KDad… Since you didn’t bother reading all the way through David’s ranting to reach the facts of the case, let me take you to the bottom line he tried to obscure in the article.
There is nothing in this case about having a gun in the home and having alcohol in the home.
There is nothing in this case about having a gun in the home while being drunk.
The point at which the law comes into it is only when you are drunk and have the gun on your person.
@XL – However – if one is in their home and police are not given permission to enter, then how would they know. Seems to me that police entered illegally, thus any evidence is tainted and case should be thrown out. So, from your post am I to assume that cleaning your guns after dinner is absolutely against the rules – if you’ve had a glass of wine or a beer? What about serving pizza and beer to one’s friends helping you move. Unbeknownst to them there could be ammo or firearms or (gasp) firearm parts in some of the… Read more »
I can tell that reading comprehension isn’t your forte.
https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/PDF/12/2019/2019-Ohio-916.pdf
Yawn, sorry David, I’m pretty close to an absolutist on gun rights but even I have a very hard time getting worked up about supporting your right to get drunk and go shoot firearms — even in your own home.
All responsible gun owners have long acknowledged that guns and alcohol don’t mix.
The arrest might have been a bit extreme (leading me to wonder about the totality of the circumstances) but if the court upholds the conviction it really isn’t going to impact any responsible gun owners.
XL, this will impact everybody.
No, jack mac, not everybody. In fact, hardly anyone given the facts as reported.
The next step is if have had ANY alcohol prior to a break in, use your firearm for self defense, you will be charged and probably give the perp grounds for a law suit.
it’s not much of a stretch to see them taking guns because you have a bottle of something in the house. it doesn’t matter if you’re drunk. you have the opportunity, so we’re taking your guns.
give em an inch, and so on. they’ll use any wedge they can find.