People v. Blue, supra. The terms of a penal statute must be sufficiently explicit to inform men of common intelligence what conduct on their part will render them liable to criminal penalties. However, there is a limit to the degree of precision that can be required of any statute. Consequently, no more than a reasonable degree of certainty can be demanded. Nor is it unfair to require that one who deliberately goes perilously close to an area of proscribed conduct shall take the risk that he may cross the line.
Possession of firearms is proscribed in other jurisdictions under various circumstances.
Nor has this court found it necessary to define the word. As we stated in Blue, supra, the legislature is not required to define readily comprehensible and everyday terms which it uses in statutes. Where fairness can be achieved by a commonsense reading of the statute, we will not adopt a hypertechnical construction to invalidate the provision. The judgment of the district court is reversed. E. g., hunters drinking at their camps at night, policemen drinking when off duty, citizens drinking in their homes with firearms in the vicinity.