JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Breathalyzer before voting, before speaking in public or publishing anything for public purview, before remaining silent, before denying soldiers quarter on your property / in your home, before speedy trial and facing your accuser(s), etc....

Just another attempt to morph a right into a privilege
 
I believe this to be correct. I was watching the show alaska state troopers, a Homeowner ends up shooting a guy in his house. He's released but the next day some family of the deceased shows up, the cops show up and the homeowner has a rifle and had been drinking. Guess who goes to jail. The homeowner.

of all the states I would have never imagined that in Alaska.


There's an easy fix for this problem--when a cop knocks on your door get out of sight and stay that way until the cop goes away
 
There's an easy fix for this problem--when a cop knocks on your door get out of sight and stay that way until the cop goes away

With all due respect to LEOs, not talking to LEOs while intoxicated, much less answering the door, is a good idea in many cases. I don't drink (if for no other reason than the heart meds I take, but also because I don't drink), but even if I did (or didn't), I wouldn't talk guns, or much of anything else with LEOs who come knocking on my door.

What happens on my property (much less my house which is 1000 yards from any public property and 100 yards from my private road), is my business and nobody else's - i.e., what happens here stays here.
 
of all the states I would have never imagined that in Alaska.

Its always interesting to learn that seemingly pro-gun states are actually more anti-gun in practice than even Ore and Wa. By comparison, in Oregon our carry laws are actually quite... liberal, despite the state being more anti-gun.
Its an odd arraignment.
 
With all due respect to LEOs, not talking to LEOs while intoxicated, much less answering the door, is a good idea in many cases. I don't drink (if for no other reason than the heart meds I take, but also because I don't drink), but even if I did (or didn't), I wouldn't talk guns, or much of anything else with LEOs who come knocking on my door.

What happens on my property (much less my house which is 1000 yards from any public property and 100 yards from my private road), is my business and nobody else's - i.e., what happens here stays here.


Hope you find a place off site to bury the evidence
 
It's late so I won't dig deeper, but this is what the article and the article it links to say:

A) It is illegal to carry a firearm while intoxicated.
B) The man in question was intoxicated.
C) There was an unloaded shotgun in the home (but since the articles are silent on whether he was holding it, I'll have to assume he was not).

If those facts are correct, it's a simple case. He wasn't carrying the shotgun while intoxicated and thus no law was broken. Award attorney fees for a frivolous prosecution.

EDIT: supremely annoying -- none of the articles state the case name, it's just a huge circle of the same blurb over and over. With case name, we could get a much better idea of what the deal is.

EDIT: figured it out I think -- lotsa PDFs: Public Docket

EDIT: Based on this brief in support of the man, he was holding the shotgun: http://supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=871319.pdf
 
Last Edited:
These are the facts as presented by the man in question in the brief linked above - name of the dude and the other resident removed:

On Feb 17, 2018, deputies of the Clermont Country Sheriff's Office were dispatched to an address other than [Appellant's ] ... which is located in the Felicity area of Clermont Country, Ohio. The deputies ended up at [Appellant's residence]. Upon arrival ... after speaking with [a woman], deputy Shouse was admitted to the house and [Appellant] came through (an interior) door holding a shotgun by the stock with the barrel of the gun pointing to the ground. [Appellant] told Shouse that "the firearm is not loaded" and that he had been unloading it to wipe it down. [Appellant] admitted to Shouse "I'm drunk". Shouse took control of the firearm, made sure it was not loaded, never saw any ammunition in the shotgun and agreed that is legal to own firearms in the United States of America and Ohio.

The law in question is RC 2923.15: Lawriter - ORC - 2923.15 Using weapons while intoxicated.

Appellant was convicted, conviction upheld on appeal at the intermediate level of appeals court. Appellant argues that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him because he was not "using" the firearm, merely in possession of it, and also argues that the court below used an intermediate level of scrutiny to resolve the Constitutional question rather than strict scrutiny.
 
So tired of this Nanny State BS mentality that is so pervasive in western society.

Agreed. 'Cept it's not just western society... we are just now catching up with most other countries.


i wanna say being intoxicated and in possession of a firearm in alaska is a crime whether it be in your home or not. i could be wrong
If this is how the law works this means all LEO's in the state are then banned from using alcohol, correct?
I have to VERY much hope there is a LOT more too this.

Alaska:
"It's illegal to possess a firearm while impaired by alcohol or drugs." Location is not specific, therefore it includes one's home. "Possession" is not defined in what I read. May be in the actual law, IDK. :(:(


what happens here stays here.

In the crawlspace.


Its always interesting to learn that seemingly pro-gun states are actually more anti-gun in practice than even Ore and Wa. By comparison, in Oregon our carry laws are actually quite... liberal, despite the state being more anti-gun.
Its an odd arraignment.

Alaska gun laws it seems to me are quite libertarian. No license to buy, no permit to carry concealed, open carry is ok, etc. As mentioned by mxwerx, what they are really intense on is alcohol possession or consumption. And apparently, the consumption of alcohol in the presence of firearms.
 
Alaska gun laws it seems to me are quite libertarian. No license to buy, no permit to carry concealed, open carry is ok, etc. As mentioned by mxwerx, what they are really intense on is alcohol possession or consumption. And apparently, the consumption of alcohol in the presence of firearms.

But then its another law that only affects the responsible. My guess is their alcohol law hasnt had much effect on the issue. IIRC you cant carry into bars there (?), another gun free zone law.
 
K,

That's an easy one for me...I don't go into bars...bad joo joo in dem places.

I'd rather booze it up at home where the company is better...my wife and 2 cats.
 
But then its another law that only affects the responsible. My guess is their alcohol law hasnt had much effect on the issue. IIRC you cant carry into bars there (?), another gun free zone law.

Didn't say I agree with their take on alcohol, only said that's the way it is...
 
I found the Ohio statute in question:

2923.15 Using weapons while intoxicated.
(A) No person, while under the influence of alcohol or any drug of abuse, shall carry or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance.​
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of using weapons while intoxicated, a misdemeanor of the first degree.​
 
I agree that we need laws to protect our life, liberty, and property. But it is going too far when lawmakers create laws intended to prevent even the possibility of something bad happening. For example, in Washington State there is now a law that says if you do not lock up your guns and they are stolen, then used in a crime, you can be prosecuted as a felon for not taking sufficient precautions to prevent a criminal from committing a crime. What? Another example. I believe that it is stupid to drive and do anything else that distracts your attention from your driving, so they pass a law that says if you are even seen with a cell phone in your hand while driving it will result in a $999 fine and suspended license for 3 years. No one hurt, but you get your a$$ kicked. Now if you caused a wreck and hurt someone, then you should be fully punished, but preemptive laws are going too far, as far as the imaginations of our elite rulers can take them.
 
Alaska has some really odd, outdated laws when it comes to alcohol. It stems from heavy substance abuse among the indigenous population (not to mention the whites that settled there) - Alaska is a frigid paradise, but it also can bring on crippling depression and loneliness, and a lot of people self medicate thru booze and drugs. A lot - if not most - Alaskan villages are dry - that is alcohol is banned entirely. Prohibition is still in force in much of Alaska, and a black market for booze up there is big and can bring big, big money.

I've heard a lot of stories in fly shops of guys who take annual vacations to Alaska, and they smuggle gallons of booze with them, which sells for 3-4 or even 5X what it goes for here in the lower 48. A guy could almost pay for a couple days of his stay in booze in some places.

also illegal to give alcohol to a moose
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top