[supercat]

The Minnesota legislature, duly elected by the citizens of Minnesota, defined "firearm" -- not some activist judge.

How far should judges allow legislatures to go in defining words? For example, while there would not be anything unconstitutional with forbidding felons from posessing alcohol, would it be proper for a legislature to extend the definition of firearm to include "any container of any size or description containing a potable liquid containing more than 0.5% ethanol, if the total quantity of ethanol exceeds more than 0.05oz"?

[robertpaulsen]

If it's not unconstitutional, why would the legislature bother to do it that way? If the legislature defines a gun as alcohol, they have to answer to the people who elected them as to why they did that.

But to answer your question, if there is abuse, it is by the judges who are interpreting the words of legislature the way they want.

[mamelukesabre]

I beleive it is already the law that anyone on probation or parole is not allowed to consume alcohol (or vote). But this is almost never enforced. It would be even less enforced if this prohibition were to last for a persons lifetime.