Posted on 11/19/2019 4:52:27 AM PST by Lowell1775
OHIO PING!
Please let me know if you want on or off the Ohio Ping list.
Ohio Supreme Court To Decide Whether Gun Owners Can Drink At Home
Posted at 4:30 pm on November 18, 2019 by Tom Knighton”
So, if there is to be war, go first for the prosecutors.
A real club trumps a bogus legal club
I know a Marine who owns a gun shop/shooting range in Ohio whod piss himself laughing at this idea.
As would I.
Theyre going on the presumption that all gun owners are morons, and should have their rights removed like flicking a switch.
It’s not really enforceable, though it may have saved Terry Kath’s life. :)
How can such a law be enforced? That is the main problem as I see it. It’s as thought it would be one of those “secondary” violations, like seat belt laws used to be. They are in the house on a domestic violence call, the man or the woman is intoxicated, and there is a gun on the kitchen table. Busted.
That’s All I’m really seeing here.
It’s time we start going after those individual prohibition laws and that should include smoking. Which supporters of alcohol prohibition will be using to promote their cause.
The word “supreme” went to their heads. They should just declare that this is NOT a matter for the courts, or for the state at all and drop the matter entirely.
Yep.
Or an anti gun neighbor walks by the gun owners trash barrels on trash day, throws a few empty beer bottles next to the empty ammo boxes and calls police.
Like the idiotic red flag laws, this is ripe for abuse.
Whatever happened to stay out of my bedroom?
Can we bring back anti-sodomy laws again now?
Didn’t our Founding Fathers meet in pubs, drink the swill and plan the departure from old England?
So if they come to your house, find you intoxicated, find your car keys on your kitchen table, then do you also lose your driving privileges? After all, you could, in your intoxicated condition, decide to get in your car and get involved in an accident that kills someone.
Now mind you, the Constitution grants you the right to own a gun—without any reference to whether you are sober or intoxicated. The Constitution says nothing about who can drive.
Or an anti gun neighbor walks by the gun owners trash barrels on trash day, throws a few empty beer bottles next to the empty ammo boxes and calls police.
In England they are arguing about Kitchen Knives in ethnically English homes... as of yet no one has introduced the idea of banning household knives because of occupant drinking. Of course we the problem is Muslim’s knifing people outside their homes.
Following through with this we should ban liberals from breathing.
So if they come to your house, find you intoxicated, find your car keys on your kitchen table, then do you also lose your driving privileges?
Excellent point. Or, at a restaurant having a drink with dinner. Apply the reasoning elsewhere, hows it sound?
This because you might ___________ reasoning is abominably unAmerican, invasive and 1984ish.
DAs and prosecutors are big causes of this bullshit. Lawyers enemies within.
I think it means that if you were in your home and have had a drink and some clown breaks in and you shoot him it’s your fault that he broke in.
Also, suppose you use your gun in self-defense in the house and in the course of the investigation the police discover that you have beer in the refrigerator or a liquor cabinet, I think the law would then be used to prosecute you.
We should never underestimate the overzealousness of anti-gun prosecutors.
It wouldn’t take a very good attorney to make the “beer in the fridge” excuse irrelevant.
If I’m driving home from the liquor store and get pulled over, having unopened containers in the car can not be used against me. Same thing here.
I’m not saying I’m for this law. I’m just saying that it really would not be all that impactive on most people. It would be a little like the “stop and frisk” thing.
Maybe the delusion Democrats are going to try for another National Prohibition and legalize Pot.
While I agree with your comment, an anti-gun prosecutor could carry this on long enough to bankrupt the average person with legal fees. In the end it would be a pyrrhic victory for the homeowner.
Been done before with similar laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.