The Place Where Ludington Talks
New gun-control legislation would prohibit those arrested but not convicted of drug crimes from possessing firearms
This attempt at a law is just plain silly. While I am ok with a very few gun law's, like I am ok with a background check.. I don't think it hurts to know a little bit about who is buying, some of these ideas for laws are just dumb. This law being proposed by Chuck Schumer is over the top dumb... and possibly un-constitutional. Barring someone from purchasing a gun if they have been arrested or convicted for any drug offense is easily a bit overreaching. There are plenty of people that wouldn't be affected if this were made law like me as I don't partake in drugs, never had any real desire too, there are some people out there that could be affected for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If anything, a person should have to be convicted of a crime to be barred from owning or buying a gun (which even then it should only be for certain crimes, like violent crimes).
In the end though, most of these gun laws don't do a thing. A bad person that wants to get a gun will get a gun regardless of any law. There are no laws out there that have made a dent in gun crimes. Look at Chicago, they restrict guns yet have all sorts of gun crime. Same can be said of Washington DC... plenty of gun laws and even more gun crime.
Get collared years ago on a bogus drug charge because the oregano in your back pocket looked like was a bag of weed? Or maybe a judge back in 2006 dropped those charges because you were able to provide proof for that Adderall prescription? Under proposed legislation, it will not matter if you were innocent all along or even proven innocent by a court of law.
Either way, you can forget about buying a gun.
The Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 would greatly expand the definition of those legally prohibited from owning firearms to include anyone who’s ever been arrested — even if never convicted or found guilty — for drug possession within a five-year period. The legislation is certainly troubling for those who want a “common sense” debate about drug decriminalization. And it would seem fears that any new national gun-control legislation would be used to limit the gun-rights of law-abiding citizens is at least partially justified.
Sponsored by New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and introduced earlier this month, the expanded background checks bill includes a “clarification of the definition of drug abusers and drug addicts who are prohibited from possessing firearms.” Under Schumer’s bill, the definition of a “drug abuser” would include anyone with “an arrest for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years.”
Current federal law already specifies that two kinds of drug users can be barred from owning a gun: (1) Those who have been convicted of possessing or using a controlled substance in the past year and (2) Anyone who has had multiple drug arrests in the past five years, including one within a year of applying for a firearm, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
The rules surrounding what “inference” the federal government can make about a current “drug user” are complicated. Add to that regulations stating who is prohibited from owning a firearm; a cumbersome background check system; and inter-departmental communication and, suddenly, the combination of firearms and drugs becomes a confusing bureaucratic mess of regulations and codes.
But the “arrest” language of Schumer’s bill and a clarification from the ATF indicate that a greater number of innocent Americans would be barred from owning a gun if the Senate bill becomes law.
“Under the definition of ‘unlawful user’ … an inference of current use could be drawn if the one arrest resulted in a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year,” the ATF told the The Daily Caller.
To clear up any confusion, Schumer’s bill would expand that “inference” to say: if you’ve ever been arrested for any kind of drug use or possession in the past five year, you can be denied the lawful possession of a firearm.
The bill’s definition of an “unlawful user” also includes anyone arrested for drug paraphernalia within the past five years if the paraphernalia is found have traces of a drug, and those who make an “admission” to using or possessing a controlled substance in the past five years. The meaning of “admission,” however, is not defined.
Schumer’s office was unavailable for comment. One thing is clear, though: the senator’s legislation would prohibit a lot more innocent-until-proven-guilty people from possessing firearms.
A little more than 1,600,000 people were arrested in 2009 on drug violations, according to statistic from the Federal Bureau of Investigations. About half of those people were arrested on marijuana charges, with simple drug possession — rather than sale or manufacturing — accounting for nine-tenths of those collars, according to Reason magazine. It’s those last set of figures that could very well rally two groups most people might consider odd bed-fellows: pot-smokers and firearms enthusiasts.
Aaron Houston, director of government relations for Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said adding even more penalties to those thousands of people arrested for marijuana “doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.”
“It makes criminals out of law-abiding Americans. Clearly, [similar drug policies] have not worked up until now,” said Houston. ”Heaping criminal penalties onto otherwise law-abiding Americans just because they possess a little bit of marijuana is a failed policy.”
The SSDP doesn’t have an official position on the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011, but Houston said that if the “arrest” language was removed, the group “certainly wouldn’t find it as problematic as we do now.”
The current National Instant Background Check System (NICS) only requires a check on those purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. Gun-control advocates have pushed for those checks to include guns exchanged between individuals, which is often referred to as the “gun show loophole.” The addition of Schumer’s drug legislation plays directly off public fears that accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner – apart from allegedly being determined to kill no matter wat — also admitted to using marijuana. No research, however, has proven a causal link between marijuana use and violent acts.
New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is expected to introduce a companion background check bill — modeled after Schumer’s — in the House very soon. Houston called Schumer “terrible on this stuff,” and expressed dismay that McCarthy would include similar language in her bill. McCarthy’s office said it was moving forward carefully but wants to ensure that “the most dangerous people who shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns are in the NICS database.”
“Everyone agrees on the goals of the bills to require a background check for every sale and to make sure more names of people who should be in the database are actually put into the database,” said a spokesman for McCarthy. “As for any more specifics, that’s being discussed.”
Even the nation’s largest gun-control advocacy group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has problems with Schumer’s drug language.
“It’s a concern we’ve raised about this proposal, too. I’ve got the same concerns,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign. “[There is] the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty concept coming into play here. So that alone is a legitimate concern.”
Helmke said the Brady Campaign was working closely with McCarthy’s office, noting that the representative’s legislation hasn’t even been introduced yet.
“It’s not going to be introduced after this recess week, and they’re going to be making some changes,” said Helmke.
Views: 148
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by easymoney on
-
If you are a NRA member, you'll find many gun laws trying to be pushed thru. Try checking out www.mayors against gun violence.com. Also, doews anyone really believe the story the BATF is spinning about the guns beiong allowed to flow into mexico so the batf can follow them to see where they were going? and the pres. and napolatono knew nothing about it??? It was allowed and condoned by our gov. to get the smuggeling numbers up for more regulations. GUN CONTROL the end results are all that counts. Would have worked if one of our own agents hadn't been killed by one of the guns they were supposed to be tracking and fed agents finally started telling what really was going on, jepordizing their own careers.
Goes back to Alinski's rules, the end result, justify the means as long as you win.
Lock and load
-
Permalink Reply by Max on
-
The federal government has no business regulating guns in the first place, period. The Sullivan Laws, the first major attempt at gun control in this country, were of racist origin and did nothing to prevent crime.
There is a growing push for these types of laws. Here in New Mexico, the legislature recently passed a law requiring DNA samples to be taken for anyone ARRESTED on a felony charge.
Personally, I don't think persons that have served their time for their crimes should not be barred from owning a gun. My though is, that if they are too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to be free.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave on
-
I understand where your coming from. I in part concur with most of what you have to say. As far as guns for people that have committed a crime and did their time goes, I think it just depends on what kind of crime... basically if it was a violent type of crime, specially murder, that those people should not have legal access to guns. Basically, they had their chance to be a lawful gun owner and they blew it. A person that lets say gets caught with a bit of dope for their own personal use, they shouldn't have a problem with owning a gun.
Like I mentioned in my opening piece of this thread, I don't mind so much about their being a background check done... but it should solely be just a background check. In this day and age, I don't think there should be a 3 day waiting period though, we have the technology that all information should be inputted into a computer and have a quick check done in minutes. If a person is going to come up bad, they are going to do so in 3 seconds or 3 days, so might as well get it out of the way now then later.
In other words, any guns laws should be the exception, rather then the rule.
-
-
Gun Control on Ex-Cons. Who has most of the assult weapons now. DRUG DEALERS AND GANGS. DUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!!!!!! Have all the gangs kiss and make up and stop drugs comming into the USA. I know several ex-con's that go hunting and cause no problem.
-
-
Well like I say, the only restrictions should be on those that were convicted of the violent crimes I mentioned. I should clarify though that legally, they should be restricted from owning... if they still want to hunt and the local LEO's don't want to enforce the restriction then that would be the prerogative of those involved and I don't care so much about that.
-
-
I don't know the gun laws in mich. but in ohio, where I now reside, my gun purchases are sent to my FFL. holder and I pick them up there, fill out paperwork, he calls BCI and I'm out the door in less than ten minutes.
As for assault weapons, you have to have a special licsence to purchase a fully automatic weapon. The very use of "assault like weapons", used by the brady bunch and fed officials is to confuse people who don't understand weapons, they think semi-auto weapons are assault weapons, which they are not.
The reason for the "fast and furious" program ran by the BATF, which falls under the jurisdiction of the treasury dept, was to get there numbers up, for more gun control legislation. Nothing else. Didn't work last year, and hopefully, it won't work now
The sad thing obout what is happening because of this, is how many deathe have and will happen because of a game of numbers??
O'bama now claims they knew nothing about it,but e-mails and paper trails don't lie. Care to bet that Grassely investigation gets blocked. What odds will you give?
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
The right to bear arms is a fundamental benchmark of our freedoms here in the USA, and this right should only be taken away from those who present a clear danger to society. I would hate to have our governments even ban the use of guns to a felon who lived just off the Mexican border, whose purpose is to protect himself, his property, and/or his family.
Background checks can be helpful to deter the issuance of a gun to a wacko or someone who has a violent past, but then there's the slippery slope of just what disqualifies you from getting that gun, who's making that judgment, and whether it is consistently applied for all.
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
