Abstract
In 2001, the Michigan Legislature passed a law prohibiting the possession or use of a firearm by a person under the influence of alcoholic liquor or a controlled substance. Presumably the legislature thought it necessary to prevent individuals from possessing a firearm while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. One study has indicated that alcohol misuse is keenly associated with firearm ownership, risk behaviors involving firearms as well as risk for perpetrating harm to one’s self or others. Researchers also found that an estimated 8.9 to 11.7 million firearm owners binge drink in an average month. In an attempt to combat gun violence and alcohol use, researchers have suggested restricting firearms for those who misuse alcohol or drugs. In light of the data, it is not unreasonable to think that the Michigan Legislature sought to prevent gun violence in connection with alcohol and drug use. However, such policies are clearly at odds with the original understanding of the Second Amendment.
This Article argues that the intoxicant rule as a limitation on one’s Second Amendment rights is antithetical to the original public meaning of the Constitution. More simply, this Article argues that laws criminalizing and further restricting an individual’s right to bear arms due to intoxication are unconstitutional and directly contradict the original public meaning and tradition of the Second Amendment. Thus, this Article undertakes to explain that the foundational case on point, New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, provides a clear basis for overturning the intoxication rule as an impermissible burden on the right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.
Repository Citation
F. Lee Francis,
Armed and Under the Influence: The Second Amendment and the Intoxicant Rule After Bruen,
107 Marq. L. Rev. 803
(2024).
Available at: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol107/iss3/7