While preventing intoxicated individuals from committing crimes involving handguns is an important government objective, the infringement on defendantâ€™s right in the instant case was not substantially related to that objective. We initially note that, at the time of the officersâ€™ entry into the home, and at the time they were actually able to establish the level of defendantâ€™s intoxication, defendantâ€™s possession was constructive rather than actual. Thus, to allow application of this statute to defendant under these circumstances, we would in essence be forcing a person to choose between possessing a firearm in his home and consuming alcohol. But to force such a choice is unreasonable. As the facts illustrate, there was no sign of unlawful behavior or any perceived threat that a crime involving a handgun would be committed….
I’m OK with laws that punish the use of firearms while actually intoxicated, but not for a firearm stored in the home. Such a restriction is probably “common sense” to our opponents, but not to anyone who actually owns a firearm. It’s exactly how the court characterized it.