The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state law barring intoxicated people from having guns. [More]Oh, I guess my title question is answered further down.
I wonder why they don't tack on additional charges for possessing, say, box cutters or matches?
[Via Cocked and Loaded]
3 comments:
The interesting thing is that all of the comments following the article are right on! Some people DO "get it."
TEXAS PENAL CODE
CHAPTER 49. INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES
Sec. 49.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(2) "Intoxicated" means:
(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, a dangerous drug, a combination of two or more of those substances, or any other substance into the body; or
(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
Note: Not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE into the body.
It follows that:
In Texas, one could conceivably become intoxicated by inadvisedly consuming an inordinate amount of sour pickles and buttermilk.
"Well, Judge, he was hanging over his back fence puking his toenails up, and I could see his gun hanging over the fire place through his livin' room winder. It was a terrible sight. This feller belongs in the hoosegow. Besides, That '94 Winchester would sure look good in my collection. You recon you could forfeit it to me?"
[W-III]
So Wx3 being on a government issued prescription would fit that bill huh? Imagine that...but nope, no back door dangers in the health ___ reform....
Like paving the road with all those good intentions, one brick at a time, until... POOF! It sure is warm here, wherever it is we ended up.
wv= decurs. De curs are running wild and sitting on the courts.
Post a Comment