It seems to me that questions like whether the law covers a case where the gun is merely in a locked case in the basement while you have a beer in the living room will have to wait another day. This simply isn’t that case. This is a case where a person was not only holding a gun but threatening to shoot it

You have the 2×2 box, someone was drunk/sober and did/did not do something wrong with a gun, so you have 4 situations drunk/notbad, sober/notbad, drunk/bad, sober/bad.

Two of these (drunk/bad and sober/bad) can be punished without this law (as in this case). We don’t want to punish sober/notbad, so this law only affects drunk/notbad.

While I can’t get my knickers in a twist about the law, I’m not sure someone who is a peaceful armed drunk worries me any more than someone who is armed, angry, and sober – and you can certainly construct hypotheticals where enforcing such a law would be unwise (“After surviving only because his vest stopped three rounds, Officer Smith clocked out, went home, had a stiff glass of whiskey and laid down on the couch until the shakes went away, without securing his weapon first”). Unwise, but criminal, without also doing something inappropriate with the weapon?

It seems to me that questions like whether the law covers a case where the gun is merely in a locked case in the basement while you have a beer in the living room will have to wait another day. This simply isn’t that case. This is a case where a person was not only holding a gun but threatening to shoot it (and not in self-defense).

I don’t think there’s any question about the law having a rational basis, and as noted under the Prohibition repealer the states have special powers to regulate alcohol and drunkenness as they see fit.

Brett Bellmore: I think the point here is that since the RKBA IS a “right”, it can’t be denied on the basis of normal life activities. The real question here is the extent of the “possession” required to trigger the ban: If it’s ‘constructive’ possession, I think we’re into constitutionally problematic territory. If it’s “the gun was in his hand” possession, probably not.

That was what I was thinking.

Basically, I can’t get drunk in my own house because it contains firearms? So even if all of my guns are locked up in the safe, I can’t get drunk in my own home?

Something seems very, very wrong with that law. I’m not even going to try to make a legal argument. I’m going to pull a Posner and merely say that my intuition suggests that something isn’t right about that.

Are there any other inanimate objects that may or may not be in my house that prevent me from engaging in any activities? For example, does the law prohibit fornication if my home contains a cat, a microwave oven, or a personal computer?

Oren: The RKBA isn’t being infringed. People are losing the right (they never had) to get drunk.

With all due respect, Professor, I understand your political viewpoint on “rights,” and yet I’m very confused as to how this is defensible conduct on behalf of the state.

I think the point here is that since the RKBA IS a “right”, it can’t be denied on the basis of normal life activities.

The RKBA isn’t being infringed. People are losing the right (they never had) to get drunk.

Anatid: So does this mean that when you come home from the range, after all the ammo is locked away, you still cannot have a beer while you clean your firearm?

I thought the OP specifically noted that one had to be intoxicated and armed at the same time.
I think the interesting question is what the legislature intended in passing this law. Was the idea that this would make it easier to gain control over people inclined to be both intoxicated & wield a weapon?

It is difficult to see how this has much deterrence value, unless one thinks that people who know they are likely to become intoxicated will give up/not purchase arms

Before the arrest, reports had surfaced that he and the undersheriff had reportedly been seen frequenting local celebrations, drinking, and carrying their firearms. I witnessed this behavior on at least one occasion. At least one Colorado jury has found this behavior to be illegal when given the opportunity to judge.

Cigar smokers beware :)

I think the people who need to beware of the law in question are the Missouri LEOs. The law in question doesn’t contain an exemption for them, and I’ll bet there is a bar frequented by police somewhere in St. Louis where being intoxicated while armed is common :-).

The rationales put forward to justify the right to bear arms don’t seem to indicate this is an unjustifiable requirement.

Guy, I don’t see the RKBA angle at all. As I understand it, if a statute criminalizes (A && B), you must prove that you have the ( RightTo(A) && RightTo(B) ) to overturn the statute as unconstitutional. Since you do not have the right to be drunk under any circumstances, your RKBA doesn’t enter the discussion.

Of course, the rational basis test applies to separately to all laws, even if there is no right in question, so your blue eyes example fails but not in a way that helps your argument. The RBT and the RKBA are logically separate inquiries.

Oren: Indeed, a State with the power to criminalize even the possession of intoxicating beverages surely can exercise the lesser power of criminalizing intoxication concurrent to the possession of a firearm.

Not to be difficult, but I may have oversimplified the case. Certainly the state couldn’t impose completely arbitrary restrictions (e.g. You can’t be intoxicated while having blue eyes). But I think the inherent danger associated with mixing drunk people with firearms justifies it, not requiring the gun to be loaded can also be justified (if you were drunk, how can we trust that you remember if it’s loaded? Do the police have to know its loaded for probable cause? What’s the mens rea for the being loaded requirement?). The rationales put forward to justify the right to bear arms don’t seem to indicate this is an unjustifiable requirement. Given that most jurisdictions criminalize public drunkenness, or drinking alcohol on the sidewalk, this isn’t really so much an “anti-gun” statute as an “anti-dangerous/threatening drunken behavior” statute. If the statute were interpreted so that possession was merely having it in your house, then there would be real Second Amendment and Equal Protection implications.

Anatid: So does this mean that when you come home from the range, after all the ammo is locked away, you still cannot have a beer while you clean your firearm?

Truly, that is the very definition of tyranny.

Of course, the states have the authority to tell you that you can’t have a beer ever, if they choose to. Also, “having a beer” isn’t the same thing as being intoxicated.