4 votes

"Prohibited Persons" My Comment to the New York Times

The New York Times has been pushing their gun/people
control agenda in a pretty disgusting series of editorial
since Sandy Hook:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/edit...

My conclusion is that - while we need to deal with the current batch of gun bills
that the Senate will be taking up after Easter - that existing law, which no one has really been talking about, is so blatantly evil and affects so many people that it offers important winnable issues that could attract wide support and enable us to take the offensive instead of endless grinding defense. It's time to be the the Red Army at Stalingrad, or something - pick the right time and place and counterattack.

Over 40 million Americans under *existing law* - all consumers of cannabis - are "Prohibited Persons" and felons if they possess even a single live round of ammunition. This is so big, so blatant and so dumb that if we can't do anything with this as an issue, well...

Anyway, my comment to the NYT:

"While "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" sounds like a noble and uplifting goal - the evil is in the details.

For example, the NYT supports S. 374 - one of the bills that has cleared the Judiciary Committee - having the stated purpose:

"To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale."

What nobody mentions is that those whom existing federal laws say are "Prohibited Persons" includes *everyone* who is a consumer of marijuana.( USC Title 18 Section 922 (d) (3) ).

It is a federal felony for such persons to possess even a single round of ammunition, it is another felony to lie on the background check application (Form 4473) as is transfer of a firearm to a "prohibited person" - even unknowingly - with penalties of up to 15 years under S. 443, yet another of the bills up for consideration.

Zero distinction is made as to whether the marijuana user is acting completely legally within their own state laws, or engaging in activity that does not even rise to the status of a misdemeanor (as in those states where simple possession or use is only a violation - on the level of a parking ticket).

Number of adult US marijuana consumers = 40 million plus -
all potential felons if they possess so much as a single shot .22.
And with S.374 states will be obligated to report all of them to the Feds.

Feeling safer now?"

My other thread on this topic:

http://www.dailypaul.com/278921/900-pound-gorilla-of-gun-con...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Prohibited Persons and 2A letter to Wyden and Merkley

Come on, people - if these people want to support laws
that say forty million or more Americans have *no* Second
Amendment rights because they consume cannabis then
let's make sure they have to do so explicitly and publicly.

The more people call them on this the harder it becomes
to ignore. Those of you who do Facebook consider asking
questions like these on your Congresscritters FB page:

Dear Senator Merkley,

As you are probably aware, 18 USC § 922(g) & (n) of the
Federal Code makes it a felony punishable by 10 year in
prison for a "prohibited person" to possess a firearm. As
I understand it, this definitely means to include those who are
users of marijuana.

Estimates of the number of adult marijuana users in the US mostly run to
40 million or higher. The estimates of the number of users of medical
marijuana seems to be 2.0-2.5 million people.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?question...

Federal law does not currently make any distinction as to whether marijuana
use is legal under state law or not - any use voids the users 2nd Amendment
rights and makes it a felony for them to possess even a single live round of
ammunition.

So, I have several questions to which I await your response.

1) Do you agree with the existing provisions of law that void the 2nd Amendment rights of all marijuana users?

2) If your answer to 1 is "no" do you believe that there are marijuana users
that should be excluded from the category of "prohibited persons" under 18 USC § 922(g) & (n)?

3) If your answer to 2 is "yes", what marijuana users do you feel should *not*
be classified as "prohibited persons" and what to you propose to do to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of such individuals?

4) Legislation has been proposed by your colleague, Senator Schumer of New York
(S.374) whose full title is:

"A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm
are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a
background check for every firearm sale."

For the bill to accomplish its stated purpose it would be necessary to identify
all marijuana users and have this information in the NICS system. Are you in
support of states being required to provide such information to
the federal government? Are you currently supporting S.374?

5) What kind of information about marijuana users do you
think Oregon should provide for inclusion in NICS database?
Should it include, for example, the identities of medical marijuana
card holders? Of people convicted of simple possession/consumption
violations under Oregon law?

I look forward to hearing from you so as to be able to clarify your
position on these important and timely matters.

Sincerely,

(Blue Republic)

Went to your link

What did you write? I refused to read any of the letters with their headings. They all smacked of gun control to me.

Laurelai

Know your opposition..

That's why I'd recommend checking out the pro-gun control
stuff too, even if it is depressing - better to know what you're up
against than not..

The editorial that I wanted to respond to was this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/23/opinion/keep-guns-out-of-c...

But the comments were already closed so the article I actually posted to was this one:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/gun-bill-will-...

but it's still awaiting "moderation" - which sometimes means "vanishing into a black hole"

What I wrote to the Times was quoted in my post. I also wrote an "original" DP post on the topic "900 lb. Gorilla of Gun Control" - the link to it is all the way at the end.

Thank you

read it.

Laurelai