Tommy Gun
Charter Member
Case weighs gun rights, intoxication
By T.J. Greaney/Columbia Daily Tribune, Mo. (MCT)
Published: Friday, October 9, 2009 12:09 AM CDT
Now comes the curious case of John L. Richard (pronounced "ree-shard").
In November 2006, Scott County sheriff's deputies were dispatched to Richard's home in Benton in response to a domestic dispute. His wife told a 911 operator that she had decided to leave him and he threatened to kill himself by "blowing his head off."
She said Richard cautioned that if police responded, he would make them shoot him. Before deputies arrived, however, Richard swallowed an unknown amount of morphine and amitriptyline. Deputies found him slumped over in a chair, unconscious with a fully loaded Beretta 9 mm semi-automatic handgun in his lap. He also had a shoulder holster with a spare clip of ammo, implying he intended to shoot more than just himself.
Scott County deputies did the prudent thing. They confiscated Richard's gun, took him into custody, and he was later charged with possessing a loaded firearm while intoxicated, a Class D Felony.
But a funny thing happened on the way to a conviction. Richard's attorney requested a change of venue to Mississippi County and asked a judge there to dismiss the case. He argued it violated both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 of the Missouri Constitution, which protects a citizen's right to keep and bear arms in defense of home, person and property.
The judge agreed and tossed out the case.
Because the ruling threatened to invalidate a state statute, the appeal went straight to the Missouri Supreme Court. Last week, both sides made their arguments.
So the question was put to the state's highest legal authority: Do we Missourians have an inalienable right to pack heat while wasted?
Richard's attorney argued "yes." He said that the law, as it is written, threatens any law-abiding gun owner who happens to get drunk from time to time inside his own home. If the gun is nearby and the owner is impaired, he could be ruled by police to be "in possession" of the firearm.
And what about the guy who takes prescription medication and keeps a gun in the house? Should he be worried about police knocking down his door and hauling him off to jail? State public defender Craig Johnston argued that a gun owner might have to choose between taking prescription pain pills and keeping a gun by his nightstand for protection.
"Gun owners are put in a position where they have to risk violating the law in order to be protected," Johnston said.
But assistant attorney general Karen Kramer pushed back hard on those arguments. She said Johnston was making a case that the law is so vague and broad that it has unintended consequences. She said this argument known as the "over breadth doctrine" should only apply to First Amendment cases and cases involving "inherent" human rights.
Additionally, she said, the law does not have a "chilling effect" that affects other rights.
"We're not talking about chilling the right to get drunk in one's home, if there is such a right," said Kramer. "Nor are we talking about chilling the right to take prescription drugs."
The judges, too, seemed skeptical of the gun-rights claim. They peppered Johnston with questions: What about a gun at a drunken party? What about a gun in the courtroom? Does a gun-owner's right to self defense prevent the state from passing any laws restricting gun possession?
The court's decision is due in the coming months.
What do you think?
By T.J. Greaney/Columbia Daily Tribune, Mo. (MCT)
Published: Friday, October 9, 2009 12:09 AM CDT
Now comes the curious case of John L. Richard (pronounced "ree-shard").
In November 2006, Scott County sheriff's deputies were dispatched to Richard's home in Benton in response to a domestic dispute. His wife told a 911 operator that she had decided to leave him and he threatened to kill himself by "blowing his head off."
She said Richard cautioned that if police responded, he would make them shoot him. Before deputies arrived, however, Richard swallowed an unknown amount of morphine and amitriptyline. Deputies found him slumped over in a chair, unconscious with a fully loaded Beretta 9 mm semi-automatic handgun in his lap. He also had a shoulder holster with a spare clip of ammo, implying he intended to shoot more than just himself.
Scott County deputies did the prudent thing. They confiscated Richard's gun, took him into custody, and he was later charged with possessing a loaded firearm while intoxicated, a Class D Felony.
But a funny thing happened on the way to a conviction. Richard's attorney requested a change of venue to Mississippi County and asked a judge there to dismiss the case. He argued it violated both the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1 of the Missouri Constitution, which protects a citizen's right to keep and bear arms in defense of home, person and property.
The judge agreed and tossed out the case.
Because the ruling threatened to invalidate a state statute, the appeal went straight to the Missouri Supreme Court. Last week, both sides made their arguments.
So the question was put to the state's highest legal authority: Do we Missourians have an inalienable right to pack heat while wasted?
Richard's attorney argued "yes." He said that the law, as it is written, threatens any law-abiding gun owner who happens to get drunk from time to time inside his own home. If the gun is nearby and the owner is impaired, he could be ruled by police to be "in possession" of the firearm.
And what about the guy who takes prescription medication and keeps a gun in the house? Should he be worried about police knocking down his door and hauling him off to jail? State public defender Craig Johnston argued that a gun owner might have to choose between taking prescription pain pills and keeping a gun by his nightstand for protection.
"Gun owners are put in a position where they have to risk violating the law in order to be protected," Johnston said.
But assistant attorney general Karen Kramer pushed back hard on those arguments. She said Johnston was making a case that the law is so vague and broad that it has unintended consequences. She said this argument known as the "over breadth doctrine" should only apply to First Amendment cases and cases involving "inherent" human rights.
Additionally, she said, the law does not have a "chilling effect" that affects other rights.
"We're not talking about chilling the right to get drunk in one's home, if there is such a right," said Kramer. "Nor are we talking about chilling the right to take prescription drugs."
The judges, too, seemed skeptical of the gun-rights claim. They peppered Johnston with questions: What about a gun at a drunken party? What about a gun in the courtroom? Does a gun-owner's right to self defense prevent the state from passing any laws restricting gun possession?
The court's decision is due in the coming months.
What do you think?
