[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.

[supercat]

If it's not unconstitutional, why would the legislature bother to do it that way?

Because legislatures often don't want to come out and admit to what they're doing, so they try to obfuscate it.

My question remains: if the legislature's definition of "firearm" included alcoholic beverages, should a judge allow someone to be prosecuted for unlawful possession of a "firearm" because he possessed a six-pack of beer? Or should a judge rule that regardless of what a legislature may decree, there is no way that a six-pack of beer can be so construed?