And "highly intoxicated" is an opinion not a fact. They should have run a breathalyzer or something to confirm.
I agree. That's a subjective statement, not quantified.
There is a lot here we just don't know, which makes it difficult to determine if any official action was warranted.
My question remains of whether it is wise to have laws which make it a crime to handle your own firearm in your home after drinking, whether or not it is loaded. I guess a lot would depend on how you acted with it, but the idea of a law (IOW, if you were not threatening anyone, or otherwise breaking other laws) just provides another gray area in which firearm owners can be subjected to police action, which might only be warranted legally in retrospect after taking a breath or blood test for actions in your own home.
Do we want to cross that threshold and be rid of the 4th Amendment entirely?
Do we want to be effectively disarmed in order to comply with the law to have the right to consume alcoholic beverages in our own homes, leaving that home open to invasion or other activity, without defense?
I am not advocating for handling firearms while intoxicated, that's a fool's game.
But I'm against a law which regulates me and my guns in my home beyond any on the books already governing the commonly accepted criminal use of those firearms in willful acts, because of the inevitable degradation of 4th and 2nd Amendment Rights.