6 votes

Heads up from GOA - "Bi-partisan" S.443 - 15 years for transfer of guns to "Prohibited Persons" even "negligently"

Current federal law already states, effectively, that marijuana consumers don't have
2nd Amendment rights. (Probably one of those "existing gun law" that the NRA loves
to support). Now, this supposed bipartisan compromise would impose draconian penalties
for transferring firearms to marijuana users (estimated to be over 43 million adults in the
US) or other categories of "prohibited persons" - even unknowingly.

From the GOA analysis of the bill:

"Anyone who smokes marijuana is “an unlawful user of ... any controlled substance...” and is a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3) and (g)(3).

There are also 150,000 veterans who have had their gun rights taken away pursuant to the Veterans Disarmament Act of 2008. And, there is a real possibility that, under that same act, tens of millions of people with Alzheimer’s, ADHD, or PTSD (including police, firemen, and soldiers) could be fed into the NICS system by Medicare, Social Security Disability, Medicaid, and the Department of Education.

First example: So if you’re a gun dealer and sell two guns to someone who a trier of fact determines, after the fact, you “should have known” was a marijuana smoker, you are subject to a 15-year prison sentence.

In addition, you are subject to draconian forfeiture, racketeering, and money laundering penalties.

Now, it is true that 922(d) [transferring a gun to a prohibited person] currently has a negligence standard in its text. But McClure-Volkmer inserted language in section 924(a)(2) which prohibited the imposition of criminal penalties for non-knowing violations.

Second example: If you raffle a gun to a prohibited veteran or to someone who smokes marijuana ... or if you give a gun as a Christmas present to (and at the request of) your grown son who fits one of these two categories ... you can be sent to prison for 15 years -- subject only to a subjective determination about whether you should have known more than you did.

Note several things: You don’t need to know the person is a prohibited person under either example. The recipient doesn’t need to know they’re a prohibited person. You don’t need to do anything more than plan (“conspire”) to procure the gun. The recipient doesn’t need to be on the NICS list to be a prohibited person...

In fact, under section 4, if you even “intend” to sell a firearm to a person who turns out to be a marijuana smoker -- or one of the prohibited military veterans suffering from PTSD -- you become a prohibited person yourself."

Full GOA analysis here:


Contact your congress critter:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More of a threat than Feinstein's bill


S.443 contains a lot of dangerous provisions and the GOA regards
it as a threat because while the Feinstein bill is unlikely to pass,
and prospects for several other bills that have been passed out
of the Judiciary Committee may not get through *this* bill becomes
very attractive to Red State Democrats who want to vote for
some gun control bill while minimizing gun owner outrage.
And of course it sounds fairly benign until you start checking
the fine print.

The more fundamental problem than this bill is the whole
legal situation of "prohibited persons" - barred by federal
law from possessing guns. This includes *all* consumers of
marijuana plus a bunch of other categories. That is - counting
only the marijuana users - over 40 million Americans legally
barred from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights under

And S.443 will make the situation even worse.

Not a good time to be complacent.

But of course.

The entire objective is control. Disarm the people so that there is no resistance to the NWO taking over America and the world.

Vets who know how to use guns and took a constitutional oath are first on the list for being disarmed.