I ain't drunk, I'm just drinkin...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjVfc8-Y7sQ

ETA: I suck at embedding. I've been drinkin.

The discussion I remember on that topic was that it got changed to allow you to be drunk and in possession in your home, where previously you could have been arrested in your own home for getting drunk (if there were guns in the home). I don't recall any details beyond that. I haven't been drunk since the 70s, so I don't pay too much attention to the topic.

 
My chance to try something that I read;










 


Edit - Nope, they lied.


 

Edit - Then it started working.

What about this? Looks like you have to be drunk AND do something illegal with the gun.

Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.


571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

(2) Sets a spring gun; or

(3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or

(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense; or

(6) Discharges a firearm within one hundred yards of any occupied schoolhouse, courthouse, or church building; or

(7) Discharges or shoots a firearm at a mark, at any object, or at random, on, along or across a public highway or discharges or shoots a firearm into any outbuilding; or

(8) Carries a firearm or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any church or place where people have assembled for worship, or into any election precinct on any election day, or into any building owned or occupied by any agency of the federal government, state government, or political subdivision thereof; or

(9) Discharges or shoots a firearm at or from a motor vehicle, as defined in section 301.010, discharges or shoots a firearm at any person, or at any other motor vehicle, or at any building or habitable structure, unless the person was lawfully acting in self-defense; or

(10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board; or

**(11) Possesses a firearm while also knowingly in possession of a controlled substance that is sufficient for a felony violation of section 195.202.

I think these are really important words.

You aren't allowed to embed since you aren't a team member.

Yep, still not a crime even with the language change posted in the op.

Which sounds like 99% of gun laws in a way to make things more illegal if a gun is involved.

The legislature changed the law, because we have a bunch of liberal A***H***'s on the court.  http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=35494

The law is the way it should be now.

Thanks for posting that ruling.  I hadn't seen it before. Good thing it's outdated now.

If I read it correctly, the court claimed that the "overbroad doctrine" can only be applied in First Amendment cases, and therefore, it's not possible for a gun law to be overbroad.  What the heck?

They also seem to think that you only have a right to keep a gun for self defense if you are actually being attacked.  If you are not actively shooting a bad guy, you have no right to keep a gun for self defense.