A gun owner who was intoxicated in his home, and cleaning his empty shotgun, is taking aim at an Ohio gun law, which could lead to law-abiding citizens being criminally charged.
The person could be charged even if the person who has the gun is intoxicated and uses it to protect themself during a home invasion, or against a stalker that drugged them.
Frederick Weber's attorney presented his arguments to the Ohio Supreme Court saying the law offers no defense and is unconstitutional.
Attorney Stephen E. Palmer said, "We are just proposing this, that law-abiding citizens in their own home, have an absolute right to own, possess, use or carry a firearm."
Palmer emphasized being intoxicated in your home and holding a gun should not be illegal.
Palmer explained, "Others who are intoxicated and holding a gun for any reason can get caught up in the same situation just like Weber did. If Mr. Weber heard an intruder and had this weapon and was intoxicated the violation would still apply to him."
Weber's attorney explained a hypothetical situation where under Ohio's law if a young female being stalked takes an Uber home, locks her door, puts a pistol on her lap for protection.
Maybe she's been drugged or maybe just intoxicated voluntarily. Law enforcement officers could knock at the door to say they caught the stalker, the woman could be guilty of having a gun while being intoxicated.
His client, Frederick Wever, was cleaning a shotgun that was unloaded, and his wife called police saying her husband was intoxicated and had a gun.
When officers arrived, Weber's wife notified deputies everything was all right and Weber had put away the firearm.
Weber was convicted and given probation. He appealed the case and lost and the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.
Attorney Weber added, "Cleaning a gun while intoxicated might not be prudent, but the 2nd amendment protects that conduct."
The prosecuting attorney for Clearmont County Nicholas A. Horton, believes the law is constitutional and says the state has a duty to protect the public even in homes.
Attorney Horton said, "We know from the Bureau of Justice statistics the majority of firearm violence takes place inside the home and coupled with intoxication, which lowers the ability for a person to self-control, that presents a uniquely dangerous situation. So whether inside the home or outside of the home, I think that is the purview of the General Assembly."
The spokesman for Miller Rod and Gun says gun owners will be watching this case closely, and adds if they chip away at the 2nd amendment, it's only a matter of time before they go after other amendments like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to peacefully assemble and so on.
Mike Miller, Jr. said, "In the privacy of your own home, you have firearms, your consuming alcohol, whatever it is your doing as long as it is legal, there should be no question to that. If not and this is the case, then it would set a precedent that would start to unravel one of our constitutional rights. It would start to take away the second amendment, and if you pick pieces away eventually it will go away. A lot of people might say good, we shouldn't have the second amendment, we shouldn't have those rights. But on the other hand think about it, if they take away the second amendment, what's to stop them from taking any of them."
https://www.wfmj.com/story/41816271...ZkoMwZT3zT8g1SQ9WbSzilkRC_i66b6BFrZPQRQGO2rMk
The person could be charged even if the person who has the gun is intoxicated and uses it to protect themself during a home invasion, or against a stalker that drugged them.
Frederick Weber's attorney presented his arguments to the Ohio Supreme Court saying the law offers no defense and is unconstitutional.
Attorney Stephen E. Palmer said, "We are just proposing this, that law-abiding citizens in their own home, have an absolute right to own, possess, use or carry a firearm."
Palmer emphasized being intoxicated in your home and holding a gun should not be illegal.
Palmer explained, "Others who are intoxicated and holding a gun for any reason can get caught up in the same situation just like Weber did. If Mr. Weber heard an intruder and had this weapon and was intoxicated the violation would still apply to him."
Weber's attorney explained a hypothetical situation where under Ohio's law if a young female being stalked takes an Uber home, locks her door, puts a pistol on her lap for protection.
Maybe she's been drugged or maybe just intoxicated voluntarily. Law enforcement officers could knock at the door to say they caught the stalker, the woman could be guilty of having a gun while being intoxicated.
His client, Frederick Wever, was cleaning a shotgun that was unloaded, and his wife called police saying her husband was intoxicated and had a gun.
When officers arrived, Weber's wife notified deputies everything was all right and Weber had put away the firearm.
Weber was convicted and given probation. He appealed the case and lost and the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.
Attorney Weber added, "Cleaning a gun while intoxicated might not be prudent, but the 2nd amendment protects that conduct."
The prosecuting attorney for Clearmont County Nicholas A. Horton, believes the law is constitutional and says the state has a duty to protect the public even in homes.
Attorney Horton said, "We know from the Bureau of Justice statistics the majority of firearm violence takes place inside the home and coupled with intoxication, which lowers the ability for a person to self-control, that presents a uniquely dangerous situation. So whether inside the home or outside of the home, I think that is the purview of the General Assembly."
The spokesman for Miller Rod and Gun says gun owners will be watching this case closely, and adds if they chip away at the 2nd amendment, it's only a matter of time before they go after other amendments like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to peacefully assemble and so on.
Mike Miller, Jr. said, "In the privacy of your own home, you have firearms, your consuming alcohol, whatever it is your doing as long as it is legal, there should be no question to that. If not and this is the case, then it would set a precedent that would start to unravel one of our constitutional rights. It would start to take away the second amendment, and if you pick pieces away eventually it will go away. A lot of people might say good, we shouldn't have the second amendment, we shouldn't have those rights. But on the other hand think about it, if they take away the second amendment, what's to stop them from taking any of them."
https://www.wfmj.com/story/41816271...ZkoMwZT3zT8g1SQ9WbSzilkRC_i66b6BFrZPQRQGO2rMk
