7 votes

900 Pound Gorilla of Gun Control 40 Million+ Americans Deprived of *All* 2nd Amendment Rights

Forget assault weapons bans, waiting periods, magazine limits etc.
(well, not completely, but listen up).

If it were to be announced that the government was going to completely
eliminate the 2nd Amendment rights of over forty million Americans to
the extent that they could be imprisoned for up to ten years for the possession
of granddad's old shotgun or a single round of ammunition there would
be an outpouring of outrage, right? A groundswell of resistance? The
NRA would be all over it, correct?

Especially if this could apply to people who are in complete compliance
with the laws of their state, or guilty of offenses that do not even rise to
the level of misdemeanors - the equivalent of a parking ticket.

Well, we have all done pretty well so far ignoring it, but the plain fact is
that this is all in effect NOW under *existing law* - and it is not at all
a foregone conclusion that we can get away with continuing to ignore
the proverbial 900 lb. gorilla that this represents.

I. POSSESSION OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION BY A PROHIBITED
PERSON:
18 USC § 922(g) & (n). Punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. May receive
minimum sentence of 15 years without parole if offender has three or more prior
convictions for a felony crime of violence (e.g. burglary, robbery, assault, possession
of offensive weapons) and/or drug trafficking felony.

Elements
A. Possession or receipt of a firearm or ammunition;
B. By a subject who falls within one of the following categories:
...
Drug user or addict - (Often shown where paraphernalia seized, subject tests positive for drugs
and/or subject claims drugs were possessed for personal use.); ...

OK, I edited out the other categories because, numbers-wise this involves the largest
numbers by far - most estimates of the number of adult marijuana users in the US are
above 40 million people, and the federal government definitely considers marijuana
users to fall into the above category - with no distinction about whether an individual's
use might be fully legal in the context of their state's laws.

HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE ACCEPTABLE? Of course, we have accepted it for years
and it is not so hard to understand why. Some people are simply unaware, many
more simply see it as something that they are at minimal risk of actually being
prosecuted for and this has held true for marijuana users asserting on the 4473
forms that they are not users of illegal drugs as there are have been very few
prosecutions under these laws (this is an additional felony punishable by up to
5 years imprisonment).

They also see this as no valid reason for the Feds to use this to disqualify them
from acquiring a gun and know that the NRA and most of our "representatives"
have no interest at all in sticking their necks out to protect their rights in this
area and change the system.

There has been minimal risk for gun dealers as well, because there is a sort of
prosecution avoidance provision that has been in effect to protect them from
prosecution for unknowing sales to prohibited persons. That may change if
the sleeper and rather innocuous-seeming S.443 becomes law as they or
others who transfer (or even intend to) guns to a prohibited person would
be looking at 15 years in federal prison - potentially even if neither the
seller or purchaser knew that the person getting the gun was prohibited.

So this has evolved to a defacto "don't ask, don't tell" kind of situation, but
how much confidence can we have that it will stay that way? I'm going to go
out on a limb and predict "not much". You could put a lot of DHS Fedcops in
a lot of MRAP armored personnel carriers to go after and fill up a lot of FEMA
camps with "felons" just on these couple of provisions of the Federal Code.
You trust Obama *not* to do it?

Although the situation is dangerous, and we ignore it at our risk, there is also
opportunity here if we ACT and act proactively, aggressively and intelligently.

The opportunity exists to

- Seize the initiative on a high profile issue that old school liberals, conservatives,
progressives and libertarians could unite on and

- Call the statist, controlled opposition NRA on whether it really supports full
2nd Amendment rights for all responsible Americans or not? And to find out
whether the GOA has the cojones to step up and address these absurd and
unjust laws and

- Call both the statist neocons and statist progressives on their hypocrisy
if they insist on supporting the status quo or making it even more draconian
(which S.443 does).
Liberals, from Feinstein on down always preface their gun grabbing with a statement
of how much they believe in the 2nd Amendment. She should be confronted on this
to admit that in reality she supports a system where say, a disabled person using legal
medical marijuana in her state doesn't have the right to own even a
single shot .22 and is a felon if she happens to possess one. Not that
liberals have any corner on hypocrisy - fake conservatives need to called
out on this as well.

Well, DP'ers what do you think. Anyone tired of just playing defense?
Emancipation time, I say - and no waiting for proclamations from
our benevolent dictator...

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/97507511/resource/cph.3b530...

(say, what are those leaves in the background?)

Firearms law quick reference from DOJ:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf

S.443 article and analysis from GOA:

http://gunowners.org/congress03062013.htm

Update: The bad features of several bills passed out
of the Judiciary Committee - S.443 and several others
have been consolidated by Sen. Reid into a "base" bill
S.649

DiFi's assault weapons ban isn't in there, but if the Senate
votes to proceed with the bill then it and other amendments
could be offered from the floor.

GOA explains why that's bad:

http://gunowners.org/congress03252013.htm



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Good Blog Post on "Prohibited Persons"

"18 USC 922 - Prohibited Persons [Purp]
There's all sorts of "discussion" about firearms law in this country, 99.99% of which is nonproductive blather not worth paying any attention to because of all the intentional distortions being spread by participants propagandists."

continue reading at:

http://minx.cc/?post=337180

check the comments for personal accounts of how various people
ended up "prohibited"

But if you're drunk

you can keep your guns. Why? Because if Congress couldn't have alcohol, they couldn't do their job.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Firearms Law & Legal Definition

Under 26 USCA § 861 (a), firearms is defined as “"a shot gun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition." United States v. Adams, 11 F. Supp. 216, 217 (S.D. Fla. 1935)

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/firearms/

I think the current legal definitions are a different section

18 USC § 921 - Definitions

3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

more at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

This is actually a big issue,

This is actually a big issue, especially in states like CO that have Medical Cannabis Laws. Its all based on emotional rhetoric and double standards. If you look at the stats, there are tons of incidents of someone injuring another person while under the influence of alcohol. I dont think I have ever heard of someone soley under the influence of cannabis and huring someone with a firearm.

This is the very definition of pre-crime.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

Congresscritters need to be confronted

on this issue.

You are correct - this *is* big -
40 million adult Americans with
NO Second Amendment rights?

It is also a potentially winnable high
profile issue transcending the phony
left-right paradigm. Something for
all those people that were flocking to
RP rallies last year to *do*.

People in states where medical marijuana is legal or
legal in general (CO and WA) can be consuming marijuana
in total compliance with state and local laws and still
considered felons under federal law if they possess so
much as a single live round of ammunition.

If the NRA accepts this it should be publicized and
they should be exposed for the hypocrites they are.

Same goes for Congress - we need to ask every single
one of them and repeatedly whether they support criminalizing
the exercise of fundamental rights for nonviolent acts
of a personal nature. Let's find out who the real friends
and enemies of our civil liberties are.

If played correctly, it could

If played correctly, it could help bring the left to the fold on the more legitimacy of Cannabis front. We will need a lot of stats though. The perception of this to the average Joe is that "Druggies should not have guns" and "People on drugs should not be near guns". Correct, if you are high you should not operate a firearm or vehicle just as if you were drunk. However, a normal law abiding citizen that happens to have medical cannabis and a sporting shotgun should not automatically be a felon.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.