PDA

View Full Version : It's not illegal to be drunk in your home with a gun, Michigan appeals court rules




sailingaway
01-30-2013, 04:25 PM
This went to court?


LANSING — People can’t be charged with a crime simply because they possessed a firearm while intoxicated inside their own home, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled in a case arising from an incident involving former House Speaker Craig DeRoche.

Novi police charged DeRoche with possessing a firearm while intoxicated in 2010 after they were called to his home following a dispute with a neighbor.

A district court dismissed the charge, based on DeRoche’s Second Amendment rights. The prosecutor appealed to the circuit court, which upheld the dismissal on the basis of an unlawful search.

In a unanimous ruling released today, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, based on the Second Amendment.

“While Second Amendment rights are not unlimited, this conduct is protected,” the panel said.

“Aside from the statute at issue, defendant was not engaging in an unlawful behavior, nor were there any facts to suggest that defendant possessed the handgun for any unlawful purposes.”

The panel said preventing people who are intoxicated from committing crimes with handguns is important, but the infringement on DeRoche’s Second Amendment rights in this case “was not substantially related to that objective.”

“The government cannot justify infringing on defendant’s Second Amendment right to possess a handgun in his home simply because defendant was intoxicated in the general vicinity of the firearm,” the panel said.

sounds like he had a dispute with a neighbor which was reported, and the police used it as an excuse to search his home.

This guy used to be speaker of the house there, and had gone to prison for a DUI. I'm sure nothing political was intended by this case.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130130/NEWS15/130130076/

aGameOfThrones
01-30-2013, 04:32 PM
A district court dismissed the charge, based on DeRoche’s Second Amendment rights. The prosecutor appealed to the circuit court

So... He's gonna be fired? You can't be drunk in your own fucking house?

Confederate
01-30-2013, 04:50 PM
Pretty impressive, all three courts threw it out. I wonder if the idiot prosecutor will appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.

pcosmar
01-30-2013, 04:59 PM
So,, not committing a crime is not a crime. (good to know)
Really?? they had to waste time on this?

How about the next logical step?
Some charges and perp walks for"Violation of Civil Rights under the Color of Law" for some public officials.

green73
01-30-2013, 05:09 PM
This isn't that crazy. I believe sodomy is illegal in some states.

Confederate
01-30-2013, 05:21 PM
This isn't that crazy. I believe sodomy is illegal in some states.

Not since the horrible Lawrence v Texas decision, although the law might still be on the books it's unenforceable.

Tpoints
01-30-2013, 05:36 PM
So... He's gonna be fired? You can't be drunk in your own fucking house?

I didn't know prosecutors can appeal :eek:

The Free Hornet
01-30-2013, 07:38 PM
Not since the horrible Lawrence v Texas decision, although the law might still be on the books it's unenforceable.

People aren't seeing what they don't want to see. This includes Ron Paul (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html).


The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html)

I would also argue that Judges have a similar responsibility as do juries (jury nullification) WRT stupid laws or the misapplication of a good law:


No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land

For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Common_law_precedent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#Common_law_precedent)

For Thomas to uphold a law he calls "'uncommonly silly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas#Thomas.27s_dissent)'" is a neglect of his duties, IMO. Any "uncommonly silly" law cannot have a penalty without violating the notion of cruel/unusual punishments or penalty that is not "in proportion to the degree of his offence". Thomas essentially states that silly laws with very real criminal penalties are A-OK with him. "Fuck that 'cruel and unusual punishments' BS!".

It certainly is fair to argue this isn't the job of SCOTUS (lower, preferably state courts and the Texas legislature should fix this) but having gotten to their docket, SCOTUS did the right thing in squashing it. I sometimes throw away garbage on the floor at work - that doesn't make it my job despite having a responsibility of sorts.

QuickZ06
01-30-2013, 08:22 PM
What a waste of time and money for everyone.

DamianTV
01-30-2013, 08:40 PM
So... He's gonna be fired? You can't be drunk in your own fucking house?

And you thought Snake Pliskin was kidding. No Guns. No sex unless you are married with a license. No Smoking. No Drinking. No Bacon. No Salt. No Caffeine. No Red Meat. Land of the Free...

PaulConventionWV
01-30-2013, 09:29 PM
This went to court?



sounds like he had a dispute with a neighbor which was reported, and the police used it as an excuse to search his home.

This guy used to be speaker of the house there, and had gone to prison for a DUI. I'm sure nothing political was intended by this case.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130130/NEWS15/130130076/

Oh, well at least there's that.

Glad they didn't make the most obscene ruling in the history of the 2A.

PaulConventionWV
01-30-2013, 09:31 PM
This isn't that crazy. I believe sodomy is illegal in some states.

What's not that crazy? The fact that it's legal? I should say not. If it were illegal, then I think it would be crazier than sodomy being illegal.